Talk:Iron Fist (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Scott Buck as showrunner

Comicbook.com is reporting that Scott Buck as been hired as showrunner for Iron Fist. They also have a synopsis: "Returning to New York City after being missing for years, Daniel Rand fights against the criminal element corrupting New York City with his incredible kung-fu mastery and ability to summon the awesome power of the fiery Iron Fist." Richiekim (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Marvel just made it official. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Casting, shooting news

Screen Rant is reporting character breakdowns for the show (Carrie-Anne Moss is reprising her role as Jeri Hogarth). It also says filming will take place from April-October 2016. The source they're referring to is called That Hashtag Show. I was wondering if this is a reliable source to use. Richiekim (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't sound reliable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree it doesn't seem reliable. However, the filming months seem on point though, based on this, WP:OR logic: All previous Netflix seasons have been about 5-6 months of shooting (July-December 2014 for DD season 1; February-July 2015 for JJ; September 2015 to presumably March 2016 for LC.) With Cage ending in March, that means Iron Fist would start in April. And then maybe Defenders in November 2016. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Danny Rand?

I can't tell if he is serious, but Mike Colter stated in an interview that the role has been cast.

Q: Are you excited about getting to do scenes between Luke Cage and Iron Fist?
A: The actor has been cast, but he’s in a basement somewhere. When the time is right, they’ll let him up and tell him where he is. I am [excited]. I’ll get a nice little break, after doing Jessica Jones and Luke Cage. Whether I’m in [his show], I don’t know, but there’s The Defenders.

I tend to think he is just joking around, but who knows? - DinoSlider (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think he's joking. Loeb just did an interview recently with IGN (and I believe Sarandos too) stating that actors were being considered. See my edit here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Fan opinions on casting

Should we make mention of the "swell" in online support to make Danny Asian-American? Looking specifically at this (which stemmed from the original piece and this and a follow up) and this. (THR article is particularly interesting in that they say "the clamor actually reached the ears of Marvel and Netflix", though THR is hearing they are looking to keep the actor white.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it would make sense given the coverage, as long as we present it as it is and show both sides, etc. Also, I would be surprised if more isn't made of this once the casting is actually announced, either way it goes. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, THR says the clamor reached Marvel but there's no indication it has influenced Marvel so it has no bearing on the production.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Now that a white actor has been cast and there has been more responses, I think we should mention this all somewhere, even if it is just briefly like how we mention that people saw Civil War as Avengers 2.5 when it was announced. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I still disagree, it sounds as if these fan opinions had no impact on the casting and is therefore irrelevant. Fans always have opinions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

As a very short phrase to tack on if you wanted to (and if consensus says we should), you could say, "Though many expected an Asian-American actor to portray Danny Rand, Marvel announced on February ##, 2016, that Finn Jones was cast in the role." -Rmaynardjr (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Triiiple's reasoning that it doesn't appear it had any impact (that we currently know of) on the casting. However, should Loeb or Buck ever come out and say something along the lines of "We looked at many different actors, including Asian-Americans, but felt Jones was the best for the role", then it might have some substance to tack on the fan petitions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Shang-Chi

Both MCU Exchange and That Hashtag Show are reporting that Marvel is casting actors for Shang-Chi. - Richiekim (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Filming, or some form a production may have started

Per Finn Jones' Instagram post, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97, Richiekim, and TriiipleThreat: Is this enough to consider moving to the mainspace? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so, it really isn't all that clear. But we should keep an eye out. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Adam, it's too vague to be considered verification of anything.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Even though this is unreliable, still a good basis for something to keep our eye on regarding the start and moving this to the mainspace. (And then for the ending, to keep in the back of our minds.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Something else to add to the mix. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I really hate how vague they're being. Just say it!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ugh! Me too Triiiple. Me too. Obviously something is happening or gearing up to happen. I'd say either by the end of the week or beginning of next week. Though not reliable to use here, we should keep our eyes on On Location Vacations to see if they get a tip regarding filming happening outside of the sound stage. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 and TriiipleThreat: Filming starts on Monday (though we'll need a reliable source for the article, I'd say we can proceed with moving the article to the main space). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, let's get the ball rolling, and keep an eye out for a good source to use in article. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is a source, not the source, from On Location Vacations confirming filming starting (actually started last week). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Composer

Can we use this source for the composer? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards no. Their about us page wasn't helpful in convincing my that it was a reliable source. His Twitter is verified so if he's tweeted about working on the project, we could use that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Not that this is any sort of confirmation, but he did retweet Stephanie Maslansky's (costume designer for DD, JJ, and LC, and presumably IF) tweet about the release date. I'll keep an eye on his twitter. -RM (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ooo that's close, but like you said, not confirmation. Good to know though. Thanks RM! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Buddhism

Where exactly in the sources does it actually say Rand is a Buddhist? Either I'm blind or missing something but I checked through the sources associated and none of it actually say he's Buddhist. -- S ^talk/_contribs 15:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

From Marvel, “Danny Rand is a very complicated character. He’s a billionaire New York Buddhist monk martial arts superhero who’s still trying to figure out what exactly that all means,” said Executive Producer and showrunner, Scott Buck.--17:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Premise: Presumed Dead

Can't we say in the "Premise" section that Rand was "presumed dead"? Multiple sources state this, as does the "Writing" section of this article, yet my edit of the "Premise" section to include this detail—which I believe is a major part of the story—was reverted. Why?Pistongrinder (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

To add this detail and still avoid WP:CLOP, could we have it say:

"Danny Rand returns to New York City, after being missing and presumed dead for 15 years, to reclaim his family company. However, when a threat emerges, Rand must choose between his family's legacy and his duties as the Iron Fist.[1]"

Is this a fair compromise?Pistongrinder (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be okay, or simply "after being presumed dead". Your original edit took the wording order verbatim, which was the WP:CLOP and WP:COPYVIO issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a bone-headed move on my part, and a good catch and correction on your part. :) I like your above suggestion; if there are no other objections, I'll make the edit.Pistongrinder (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Shou-Lao

Jones said the dragon will not appear, visually, on screen. Didn't know the best place to include this info, so posting here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

More from Buck and Jones on white savior controversy

Here if anything else should be added at all. Haven't read through it all myself yet, but wanted to note it here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

S1 poster

Here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

218.248.46.107 (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Empty request. -- Alex^TW 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Season 1 Episode 3: "Rolling Thunder Cannon Punch"

The description says: "In a meeting, Hogarth and Rand show Ward and Joy a gadget of the latter's..." where it should read: "In a meeting, Hogarth and Rand show Ward and Joy a handmade ceramic bowl of the latter's" as the object in question is by no means a 'gadget' as it contains no mechanical parts.

 Done -- Alex^TW 14:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2017

Please remove the "white savior" from "also see" it is irrelevant to the cannon of the series and comics. More appropriate entries would be "Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, The Punisher, and The Defenders" as entries into that section. Chif1988 (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Chif1988

 Not done Please see the above discussions concerning this. The other Marvel/Netflix series are covered under the infobox's "Related shows" link. -- Alex^TW 14:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

White Saviour

I remember there being some stuff about in the article before about some "controversy" about the casting of Finn Jones as Danny Rand. But there are none there now. And since Danny is not a "White Saviour" in the series, shouldn't the link to the White Saviour article be removed? Let me know if i missed something. --Refuteku (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

"And since Danny is not a "White Saviour" in the series," this seems to be based on your own interpretation of the source material. The information in the article is based on third party reliable sources. It should also be pointed out that sourced counter arguments are detailed in the article as well.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, my main confusion was just that the article didn't discuss anything about the "White Saviour" topic, but now i see that it has been added. :) --Refuteku (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think there should be some sort of separate section/subsection in the reception concerning the racial issues here. It was widely discussed before and after Jones's casting, and has been a big part of the reviews I have seen. I haven't had a good look through what we do have for critical responses yet, but I just thought I'd bring this up first to see what others think about splitting this content off. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the entirety of "white savior" should be removed since it is irrelevant to the series and comics, since the definition, from its on wiki is "The term white savior, sometimes combined with savior complex to write white savior complex, refers to a white person who acts to help people of color, with the help in some contexts perceived to be self-serving.". Considering that the main character is white and the people he is "saving" is those who live in New York city they whom are of many races including white it is not relevant by definition. More appropriate enteries into the "also see" section would be references to other Netflix/Marvel shows such as "Daredevil, and Luke Cage" as well as the "Iron Fist" comic page, and the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" page also. Chif1988 (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Chif1988

@Chif1988: Again please refrain from applying your own interpretations and maintain a neutral point of view based on the sourced content. @Adamstom.97: I don't think we need to add anymore WP:WEIGHT to the issue. We acknowledge both the controversy and the creator's response to the controversy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm simply stating the simple fact that by the definition provided on this site and compared to the cannon of the series/comic it does not fit. The "white savior" is, in itself, opinion based on these facts provided, and should be removed and proper links added to the "also see" section. How can we come this far as to leave out relevant article's links in favor of personal opinion? Chif1988 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Chif1988

Your application of the definition to the series is in fact original research, the only thing we can go by is how reliable sources apply the definition.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine, then why only include "white savior" in that section and not any other links to other Netflix/Marvel properties? I thought the "also see" section was for that type of stuff. Chif1988 (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Chif1988

I have already answered this in your initial edit request. The other Marvel/Netflix series are covered under the infobox's "Related shows" link. -- Alex^TW 01:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice that you did that, thank you. Chif1988 (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Chif1988

Responses of creators to white saviour controversy still needs work

Scott Buck said that he had approached the character without knowing of the racial issues surrounding him and his comic history

Ugh... I hope someone responds (or already has responded) to that remark in a reliable source, so we can balance it out. Seriously, essentially saying "I'm a white guy who's ignorant of the problematic nature of my TV show" is not a valid defense, and I am sorely inclined to remove it as WP:FRINGE. The only reason I'm not is because the reactions of the creators to the criticism are inherently notable; if it came from a third-party critic I would remove it outright.

Original co-creator Roy Thomas also defended the show following accusations of cultural appropriation is also a gross misrepresentation of what the sources are saying; they are about how Thomas is wrong and his defense is itself highly problematic and (sorry) racist. I'd fix it myself, but I don't think Original creator Roy Thomas defended the character, while repeatedly referring to Asian-Americans as "Orientals", for which he also received criticism necessarily belongs in this article.

Unless we can find another source, the former problem must remain indefinitely, but the latter ... well, I could fix it to accurately reflect what the sources say, but I have my doubts as to whether a source-accurate version belongs in this article; it would be more at home in our article on Thomas himslf, so I'm reluctant.

What do others think?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC) (edited 07:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC))

Apologies for my initial revert, this comment just came across as the angry rantings of someone not happy with what the sources are saying, which has no place here and I felt was just going to take us down a very problematic path. With your clarifying edit, I think I can better respond. I agree that the series' creator responding to critics is probably notable enough for inclusion, but I'm less sure about the original character's creator. And should we be including Finn Jones' defense here as well? I'm not too worried about this, just whatever everyone else wants to do really. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I also just got back to watching the article, and did not look here before my recent edits. I'm fine too with whatever outcome (either clarifying Thomas' comments, or removing), because I don't think we should put too much emphasis on this. We have what Buck and Jones thought on it, and maybe we shouldn't expand more? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not aware of Jones's comments (full disclosure: I haven't finished watching the show yet, so have not been going out of my way to spoil it with secondary sources, although I'm honestly hating what I've seen so far so I don't really care that much), but if the actor commented, his comments belong here more than those of the original creator of the character. And honestly, the cast's reactions to the creator's comments also belong here more than the creator's comments themselves. (My attitude toward the "'Oriental' is for rugs" thing is similar to that of Victor Mair, but with American TV shows I guess it's the best we can expect.) Of course we can't do that while removing Thomas's comments themselves, but I'm still on the fence as to whether that's a good idea.

On a loosely related note, I really think the whole "white hero who knows 'Asian' culture better than the Asians themselves" controversy (yeah, "white saviour" is a misnomer in this case, and while sources pointing out what the problem actually is are abundant, sources specifically saying it's not a white saviour narrative still need to be found) should have it's own subsection. The reaction of the show runner to claims of racism &c looks really weird in a section entitled "critical response", especially when both the criticisms and Buck's reaction come from months before any critic had seen the show. Maybe call the subsection "controversy"? It can still be included under the critical response heading. If no one does it before I finish the show, I might read the whole thing and do it myself.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we are in any rush as it stands now on this information, so if you wanted to try to compile something on the matter as you see fit once you're done, that'd be fine. We have to work anyways on cutting down the "normal" reception info, because it is too much as is now. So once that happens, we can probably fit in this info. Though I will note it may be better to format in a way similar to Doctor Strange (film) with the Ancient One, with the info with Rand's character info, than its own subsection. Unless you are compiling it in a way where we talk about the series as a whole, and not specifically Jones and Rand, then a subsection would be appropriate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait, but ... the Doctor Strange (film) article deals with that film's controversy under the "cast" section since the problem there was a white actress being cast to play a character who in the comics was not white. Here, the problem was that the plot revolved around a white guy who used his white people powers to gain a greater knowledge of "Asian culture" than actual Asians, but that was a problem with the comic books as well, because the character was always white. The controversy here is not really related to the casting, and so can't be covered in the same way; I do recall something about how it would have been a good idea for them to make Danny Rand Asian to sidestep the problem, but that also would have been the opposite of theDoctor Strange issue. I mean, it would have been really nice if this show had done what Iron Man 3 did and just chucked all the old fashioned colonialism and racial stereotyping out the window, so we could have covered it here like that article does (Shane Black explains that Ben Kingsley's Mandarin is not Chinese in the film as he is in the comics in order to avoid the Fu Manchu stereotype), but we have to play the cards we're dealt, and as is there isn't really another Marvel Studios property to compare. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the issues here seem to be more wide spread than just the casting, so something in the reception section seems more appropriate than what we did for the Ancient One. The fact that we have all the issues before Jones was cast, the reaction to that, Buck's reaction to that, critic backlash, responses to that from Jones and Thomas, and even responses from the cast to that, makes me think that there is something we could definitely be doing in terms of a dedicated section. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

...And then I got so bored/frustrated watching the show that, with it on as background noise, I went and found Jones's comments, and he too seems to have missed the point. To be fair, Variety miss the point too. If one frames it as a "casting controversy" and "whitewashing", then of course the critics are wrong ... I mean, I honestly knew long before seeing the new show, from the way both seasons of Daredevil treated all things "Asian", that Iron Fist (a show completely centered on the same thing) would probably be silly, irreverant and laughable, so the fact that the critics hadn't seen Iron Fist yet was pretty irrelevant, and if he actually thought (like Variety says) that the whole problem was about casting ... ugh. And Variety isn't apparently the only one -- when I Googled "Iron Fist controversy" one of the first results was about Hollywood casting problems with this show and Ghost in the Shell (the latter of which was bona fide whitewashing). I really don't want to, but I guess WP:VNT gives us no choice. We can include his comments (as those of someone linked to the subject whose personal opinions, however wrong, are inherently notable), and I'll just have to make do hoping that scholarly monographs will at some point in the future cover the problem in detail. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I should clarify. It wasn't just both seasons of Daredevil that made me sympathetic to the people who "judged" this show without even watching it. In Marco Polo (another Netflix original), Nayan (Mongol Prince) is portrayed as a Roman Catholic because the writers had apparently never heard of Nestorianism, and in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (another Marvel show) Japan is portrayed as having nuclear weapons because the writers had apparently never heard of the Three Non-Nuclear Principles. I'm sorry if this also looks like NOTFORUM violation, but I'm just explaining my frustration at how VNT must be applied here (citing incorrect claims because they are notable and don't violate BLP because they don't explicitly name the people in whose mouths they are putting words) pending legit scholarly discussion of the content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Critical reception is too bloated and focuses too much on criticism.

Furthermore, it's doesn't even mention that the average moviegoer rates the series positively. It give undue weight to critics of the film. NokSuk (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The "Critical reception" is for critics. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

then what do you make of the 36,600 critics that rated the series 7.4?[[1]] are their rating not as valid as 15 or so of rotten tomatoes? NokSuk (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a fanboy wiki. We have added credible information from reliable sources, and the opinions of whoever decided to rate the show on IMDb are not equivalent to that. The way we acknowledge the perspective of the general population is viewership—just as film article give critical reviews and box office data to acknowledge both sides, we have given critical reviews and estimated viewership of the series. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

But yes, in general the section is a bit bloated and needs to be cut down some, which will happen in due time. We aren't in any rush and it is better to have more than less to work from. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Critical reception discussions

"Mixed to negative" is unsourced

See here, here, here and here.

"Mixed to negative" is unsourced; not only is it unsourced, I don't see any sources on the Internet supporting such wording, which makes the wording WP:OR. Sources, including Metacritic, do support "generally negative" and "panned," however. I went with "generally negative" because it's arguably more encyclopedic than "panned."

Favre1fan93, you still supporting excluding "mixed to negative," right? 72.213.205.141 (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I see that Favre1fan93 still supports excluding "mixed to negative." I understand re-adding "from critics," but it appears that it's been overwhelmingly panned by fans and general viewers too. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Updated terminology could be used if there is a third party source compiling different reviews that give an indicator (ie if Entertainment Weekly compiled various critics reviews and thus concluded the reviews were "mixed to negative", that phrase could then be used, sourced). See the lead of Thor: The Dark World for an example of this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've looked, but the sources use "generally negative" and "panned," and so on. Since so many sources state that the film received mostly negative reviews, it would be WP:UNDUE to say that the film received "mixed to negative reviews" simply because one source stated so. I take back my comment that "it appears that it's been overwhelmingly panned by fans and general viewers too." Rather, it appears that the general audience has more of a favorable review of the series. Rotten Tomatoes, for example, shows that the audience generally liked the series. Chris Stuckmann commented on the critical reviews, finding them unfair because they are mostly based on the pilot episode and first six episodes. See what he states here, starting at 9:02. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Either "generally negative", or "mixed" are acceptable terms depending on the source but not "mixed to negative" since the word "mixed" already implies that some reviews were negative. I also agree that "panned" is unencyclopedic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's an example of a page with the "mixed to negative" terminology: Billy Madison. I believe the term is appropriate. "Negative" would imply that most people found the show to be poor, which isn't factual since there are enough mixed reviews to counteract this, but "mixed" doesn't work either since there are many who did give negative reviews. If you look at Metacritic, you'll see that there are 10 mixed reviews and 11 negative reviews. This is not wholly negative, but somewhere between mixed and negative, which is why I believe "mixed to negative" works best. When there are a good number, at least 40% or so, of reviews giving it 6/10, C, etc, these are not "generally negative reviews". Buh6173 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:CIRCULAR. Also you are mistaken that the leading sentence is speaking of individual reviews. It is meant to give an overall consensus of reviews. So in that sense "mixed to negative" is not appropriate as it is needlessly redundant.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not redundant as they are two separate terms. If you'd rather use "mixed", that's fine, but "negative" is incorrect as they are not wholly negative. Also I wasn't using the other article as a reference, but as an example of using that consensus label. And I'm aware that the leading sentence should not point to specific reviews, but again, not all reviews are negative and not all are average. So our best choices are to either say "mixed", "mixed to negative", or "average to negative" or something along those lines. Buh6173 (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

So what are we going with? Mixed or mixed to negative? Because as I explained, "generally negative" does not fit. Buh6173 (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It fits because "generally negative" means it has received more negative reviews than not. It does not mean it has received "wholly negative" reviews as you put it. I cant speak for everybody but as I said, I'd be fine with "mixed" too just not "mixed to negative".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Then I guess that's what we'll have to say, because like I said, "generally negative" might not mean "wholly negative", but it does imply a vast majority is negative, when in reality the reviews are dotted as pretty much half negative, half mixed. Buh6173 (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, TriiipleThreat and Buh6173, saying "The series received mixed reviews from critics" is inaccurate because this is not supported by the sources. Both of the review aggregators report a generally negative critical consensus. Rotten Tomatoes reports a 17% approval rating with an average rating of 4.2/10 based on 52 reviews. That is an overwhelmingly negative critical consensus. And Metacritic reports a score of 37 out of 100 based on reviews from 21 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews." Besides that, most of the sources reporting on the critical consensus for this series say that the series received mostly negative reviews. I don't know if Buh6173 is factoring in audience reception, but audience reception is not the same as critical reception (not necessarily). The lead should be altered to fix this. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to change the consensus, I recommend bringing new material to your arguments. The aggregator sites have been cited again and again by opposing members, and constantly rejected as a basis for negative reviews. Repeating this won't do anything new. -- Alex^TW 15:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no valid consensus. One editor, Buh6173, came along and made a bogus claim about "mixed" and the wording was changed. And, for some odd reason, experienced editors have stuck with "mixed" despite what the aggregator sites and general media report, as if this series is somehow exempt from protocol.

Source after source reports that the series received mostly negative reviews, with some sources using "panned" or creative descriptions such as "mauled by critics": [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. However, I did mention above that Chris Stuckmann commented on the critical reviews, finding them unfair because they are mostly based on the pilot episode and first six episodes. This collider.com source supports that, reporting, "The critics mostly panned the first half of Iron Fist, but did it pull a reverse Luke Cage and get better in the back half of the season?"

As for the reliable sources stating "mixed"? None. Well, hardy any. "Hardly" only if one wants to count a source like this popwrapped.com source. Or this telegraph.co.uk source that cites another telegraph.co.uk source that is challenging the vast majority of critics who disliked the series by noting that fans think differently. So per WP:Due, the weight is with "mostly negative" or "generally negative."

I'll be glad to bring others in on this. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

For now, I've asked WP:TV for their input. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, taken to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Generally negative - Saw comment req at WT:TV. "Mixed to negative" and similar phrasing is widely shunned across the project as meaningless. Take your pick of discussions here or the guideline at WikiProject Videogames. Mixed = positive and negative. "Mixed to negative" = "positive and negative to positive". I personally find "mixed" to be somewhat pointless as all response is technically mixed. "I hate the story, he hates the cinematography..." What most people are trying to say when they use the word "mixed" is that the response was middle-of-the-road, but that would need to be quantified, and there's no way to quantify that here, since RT uses a pass/fail and Metacritic's rating skews to "generally unfavorable". If this were a film article, we would be describing the critical response as "generally negative" based on the two aggregators being in alignment. Absolutely not "panned", as that is not proper tone for a neutral encyclopedia. Indian film articles are laden with this sort of hyperbolic nonsense--"The film was declared all-time blockbuster status!" or "The film was a disaster." No way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting, Cyphoidbomb. I see that others have commented in the "I don't feel the term for critical reception is correct" section below. So it seems that is where we are forming consensus on the issue. Please weigh in there too. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop with changing the critical reception term to suit your false lie

Change it back to mostly negative reception (because that's what it got) and i won't report you over for vandalism like I should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar22 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

First, please do not personally attack other users as you have just done or make threats of blocks to bolster your position or stance, and remain civil in your discussions. You were the editor who disagreed with the established consensus, so it is on you (without being repeatedly told) to start a discussion regarding the desired changes per WP:BRD. As for the matter at hand, please see the discussion just above where this has been discussed and established that "mixed" is the proper term to use to accurately describe the reception for the series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The consensus that only you and a couple of buddies made up? The consensus in the real world is that this is marvel's first critically panned series. Not mixed, not positive but negative. If we were to go by your logic, all shows and films would have mixed reviews. Godfather 2 has mixed reviews according to your logic. Disaster movie, meet the spartans, other jason friedberg and aaron seltzer movies, all critical disasters, would have mixed reviews according to your logic. Please change the edit back.--Oscar22 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

If anyone's disagreeing with the established consensus It's Favre for disagreeing with the news articles that its getting mostly negative reviews. Let's keep pages like this true and not containing false facts. --Oscar22 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The correct usage is "mixed" or something of the like. As stated, one cannot take only RT and MC into account when stating this. Actually looking at and reading reviews by critics, many give the series 3/5 or similar. That is not "negative" in any sense. It is mixed, with more negative opinions than positive ones. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Most of the reviews I read or glanced over at the score are 2/5 which counts as negative. The term would be at best mixed to negative. --Oscar22 (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I added an additional comment in the section above. Oscar22 is correct. The series received mostly negative reviews. "Mixed" is not accurate when weighing the sources. Anyone can see this by looking at Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and doing a Google search on the topic. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

When discussing a single topic, stick to one discussion. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 15:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I will. Cheers. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Stop changing the critical reception term

Reviews were mostly negative, not mixed. If this goes on, I will request full protection for the page. --Oscar22 (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There is still consensus against this. Your personal feelings haven't changed that. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Can you list the users who came to this "consensus"? I have noticed articles in this topic area ("the MCU", but perhaps superhero films and TV in general) often have the same three or four editors holding a common opinion through some form of osmosis, with said opinion not being shared by a number of outside observers. I have noticed that when these three or four editors (including you) use the word "consensus", it almost always refers to an agreement between said editors. And looking a bit up this page, it seems the only editors commenting are those three or four particular editors, and Oscar22 (talk · contribs).

Maybe there should be an RFC to establish a clearer consensus with the involvement of outside editors? The question could be something like Should this article describe the critical reception of the series as mixed or negative?

(For the record, I noticed this discussion because I came to this page to get a diff of the earlier discussion I was involved in for an email to someone. If anyone wants elaboration I'd be happy to provide it.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Addressing this to those that plan to reply, please note that the above editor has no civility for editors of MCU-related articles, so I would not expect such conduct in future replies; I quote: It's pretty rich seeing someone who has on at least one occasion taken the side of the sectarian cabal of editors who rule over the Marvel Cinematic Universe articles with an iron fist to accuse another user of OWN behaviour. -- Alex^TW 11:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not contributors. Bringing your ANI dispute to an unrelated article talk page is not helpful. Calling it "uncivil" to say that this and other articles have OWN problems is ... well, it's neither civil nor uncivil. If what I said is accurate, then it needed to be said; if not, then ... well, the users who I think are OWNing this and other articles should have no problem with opening an RFC. Shooting down the RFC proposal would only prove me right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Just making sure that replying editors are aware on what they're in for, given that you only steer this in your direction, just as you've already started and as you did at ANI. Now: If you have reliable sources per WP:V that go against what the article currently contains, which is what the phrase is based on, then please do provide them. Else, you are requesting a RFC on the behaviour of editors, not the content. (Behaviour of contributors? Huh.) Cheerio. -- Alex^TW 11:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't need reliable sources. The reliable sources already cited in the article support my preferred wording more than they do yours. You are interpreting them as supporting your wording, but I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of editors would disagree. A good way to check that, true or false, is to open an RFC. Or are you saying that my proposed RFC wording is bad, as it should include links to the relevant sources? How about Per these sources, should this article describe the critical reception of the series as mixed or negative? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't need reliable sources. Ouch. As previously stated: one cannot take only RT and MC into account when stating this. Yet another discussion you've hounded your way into (I don't believe you were looking for diffs), without reading the previous discussions beforehand. -- Alex^TW 13:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Ouch. I know what V says. I've known since several years before you created your account. Doesn't have anything to do with this, though -- a single reliable source that says "critical reception has been overwhelmingly negative" is enough to meet the requirements of V; in this case, I have two. Do you have any reliable sources that say "mixed"?

Yet another discussion you've hounded your way into Wait ... in your mind, who did I hound? You? Your last edit to this page before I came here was ten days ago, and yet you found your way back here nine minutes after I did -- if anything, you are hounding me. And no, having pages on your watchlist doesn't justify showing up on someone's heels. You can ask User:JoshuSasori about that one. You could also ask him about making bogus reverse-hounding accusations that just because you have edited this page, my showing up here means I was following you. Having a valid reason for noticing that I edited the page doesn't justify the fact that all your comments in the last few hours have been essentially nothing more than personal attacks against me.

I don't believe you were looking for diffs Per WP:AGF, you are supposed to assume good faith even without good reason; you are assuming bad faith even with good reason to assume good. Anyway: At "2017/5/19, Fri 20:19" (two minutes before I posted the above comment), I sent an email to Curly Turkey whose final sentence read The others continue to revert every edit I make (sometimes including talk page comments) the same as they always have, but I don't get the impression it's anything personal. The text "talk page comments" linked to this diff, and "the others" are three frequent editors of MCU-related articles. The email was about someone whom CT and I suspect might have sent you that email you mentioned on ANI -- they are unable to attack me directly while I discuss comics-related stuff because they received a six-month TBAN, and blame it on me; personally, I think the ban should have been indefinite, as their behaviour since the ban clearly demonstrates. You can ask CT if you like -- he will surely back me up on this.

But none of this has anything to do with critical reception of Iron Fist, so why are you making me discuss it on this talk page?

without reading the previous discussions beforehand I don't need to read every word of every comment to know that:

(1) apart from me, there are only six editors who have commented on this issue in this section and the two preceding it (which go back a month and a half),

(2) one of them is an "outsider" taking an (extreme) view that the fan reception has been overall positive and this article gives too much weight to professional critics,

(3) one other outsider takes the view that the article should summarize the critical response as "negative" instead of "mixed",

(4) the other four all agree on the current version, but

(5) I have had past interactions with said four, in which they all agreed on some pretty ridiculous counter-policy stuff, and tag-teamed to push that stuff despite outside opposition,

(6) no group of four editors (with or without a history of tag-teaming), opposed by three other editors each with their own slightly idiosyncratic view, can constitute a "consensus",

(7) nor does the status quo of a section of an article that didn't even exist until recently count as "consensus-by-default".

If you can tell me exactly which of the above seven points is mistaken as a result of my not having read some previous portion of the discussion, I will retract said point, but otherwise I would appreciate it if you would just put a sock in it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

> says he doesn't like walls of text

> says he refuses to reads walls of text

> does a walls of text

-- Alex^TW 14:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Whether I like walls of text is beside the point.

I never said I refuse to read walls of text. I said I don't like responding to walls of text, in-depth, more than three or four times in a row. Especially when said walls consist of nothing but uncollegial, aggressive attacks against me.

But the above is not a wall of text. If you don't want to read my response to any one portion of your comment, skip that paragraph. Each (short) paragraph is clearly marked with a portion of your comment to which it is responding.

And it's not my fault that about 60% of my comment responding to you had nothing to do with article content, when none of your comment was related to article content; could you please, please start focusing on article content and not on your personal beef with me?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Oscar22: Protection has already been requested for the page by me, to stop your disruptive edits against the version of consensus. -- Alex^TW 02:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Per my comment above, what "consensus"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

There has been no new consensus to change from the WP:STATUSQUO. Just because you have some sort of personal vendetta against us doesn't change the fact that there has been no clear agreement to change this. If you feel so strongly about this, then go ahead and start an RfC yourself. You are of course well within your rights to do so. Just don't think that you are some incredible genius, tricking us into destroying our own conspiracy ... it is cute that \you think that, but Alex is right in saying that you are coming across as rather uncivil and uncooperative. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even going to touch the "some sort of personal vendetta against us" thing. You can believe what you want, as long as you don't talk about it on an article talk page.

Please stop referring to the status quo as "consensus". If you think there should be consensus before the article status quo is changed, that's sometimes a valid reason, but this article's "status quo" has only been so for less than two months, and has been challenged almost since it's being put in place, so it only applies here as a technicality.

Anyway, if you like the RFC idea, what do you think of the wording of the question? I don't want to open an RFC only to have the first four comments come from users who have already commented but think the way I worded the question was biased -- I told you in advance so we can avoid that situation.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If you don't agree with the methods of editors who edit these articles, why are you here? You were suggested to take a break from ANI, so you decided to come here for some action? A discussion was started, a consensus was formed, you as one editor does not get to decide that it does not stand. Perhaps try actually waiting for this discussion to run its course before trying to take official action, to be able to steer it your way ("don't run an RFC and you prove me wrong", "I want other editors to reply, not the ones here"). -- Alex^TW 13:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Alex, please change your tone. I have been editing these articles longer than you have -- in fact longer than you have had an account. If you don't want to talk about content, then you should not comment on article talk pages. Anyway -- waiting for the discussion to run its course? No one had edited this page for ten days before I posted. It's clear that the same thing has been happening here (and you are trying to ensure the same thing happens here) as has happened on all those other pages: let the discussion run its course, so the editors who already have the page on their watchlist can enforce a LOCALCONSENSUS and not have to deal with more than one or two "outsiders" at any given time. You don't own this page; neither do I, neither do Adam or Triiiple or Favre1 or Oscar or NokSuk; the article is part of Wikipedia, and has to accord with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as defined to by our community of editors. And if you make one more comment about your opinion of me as a person -- well, I'll probably just rescind my offer to help solve this deadlock, and go do something else, because I have better things to do with my life than endure unending, unprovoked insults. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That'd be great. Good idea. As you said: no-one had edited this talk page for days before you rocked up. There was no deadlock. -- Alex^TW 14:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, or maybe the "insiders" had talked the "outsiders" into submission until I happened to show up for the first time in two months to retrieve a diff for an email I was writing, and noticed that there was apparently a big controversy over something that really shouldn't be controversial. It's clear that neither you nor Adam has accepted that a sentence that has only existed for about two months and has been incredibly controversial ever since does not have a WP:STATUSQUO and that the agreement of the "insiders" is not the same as "consensus". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

that there was apparently a big controversy over something that really shouldn't be controversial And hey, presto, it's now a massive controversy! Cheers for that. I love the quotes for "insiders", by the way, really smooths out your term for that "sectarian cabal of editors". -- Alex^TW 15:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Alex, I'm going to say this one more time -- can you lose the tone? And focus on article content? Do you have any problem with either of my proposed RFC questions? Which one do you think is better? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Neither. -- Alex^TW 15:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have a suggestion and this could be applied across all MCU related articles. Standing consensus among those articles is that we let the aggregate scores speak for themselves in the reception section and not to interpret the meaning of the scores in an attempt to keep the article stable and avoid situations like this. The problem is that we then turn around and do this in the lead section. Why don't we just apply this method to lead section as well and just say that the series has a 17% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and 37% rating on Metacritic? We don't have to go in any great detail on number of reviews or average scores since its just the lead. IMHO this is what people are looking for anyway so why not just give it to them upfront and save ourselves the headache. Even if we try to source the information, it just turns it a dispute on which sources to use as the terminology frequently differs.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That's actually a fantastic idea. I made that change on your suggestion --Oscar22 (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm just not sure about having such specific stats in the lead though. It shouldn't be too difficult to represent both the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores with a couple simple words—17% on Rotten Tomatoes is a "Rotten" score, and 37% on Metacritic means "generally unfavorable". That, too me, says that "negative" or "unfavorable" response is what we should be writing in the lead. If people want to learn more, they can read through the actual section. I don't think this needs to be any more complicated than that. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, you would think it would be simple but as you can see it's not. At least there's no arguing with stats. It is what it is.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it would actually be better to do something similarly to Thor: TDW and find a reliable third party source (such as EW etc.) that shows what other reviewers and put that citation in the lead with whatever terminology that source uses. That way, we keep everything basically as is, but we aren't creating the opinion in the lead as to what the reviews are. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The thing is even third party sources differ in their terminology so it either turns into a fight over which sources to use or it becomes a bloated mess of trying to cite them all.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's see what we can find. They all may very well be in a similar vein in terms of terminology so we might not have that problem. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are a bunch of review roundups from sites that could maybe be used for my idea above: THR, Comicbook.com, International Business Times, Digital Spy, Mashable, and The Playlist. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Which is why we should just get rid of the critical reception term altogether.--Oscar22 (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The lead needs to summarise the article as a whole. We don't pick and choose what bits to include based on petty arguments. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I give in

Since you seem to insist reviews are more positive than what they actually are, im changing the term back to positive reviews to suit your needs--2601:18C:8601:AFF4:4DC1:DDC3:8171:6F8D (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel the term for critical reception is correct

The current webpage says mixed reviews but rotten tomatoes has lower than 20% and the metacritic score describes the reviews as "generally unfavorable". I feel we should change the term to mostly negative reviews.Listen45 (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see the above discussions, this has already been discussed. Critical reception is based on reception from multiple critics, not just two websites. -- Alex^TW 14:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic contain reviews of many critics and most of them are negative. And yes, I did read the above discussions and all I saw was you resorting to insulting others who disagree with you. Please stop. Anyone else besides alex who has an opinion on this subject? Listen45 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The above discussions had multiple contributors, and one editor was banned for edit-warring to force it to read negative reviews against the consensus of the discussion. If you have new sources to provide that give new light to this topic, please provide them. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 15:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I will not defend that banned editor's actions but your responses to him really did not help. All I read is you making insults to others and that set one person off. Again, the sources here are proof enough that reviews are mostly negative. You just choose not to see it that way.Listen45 (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Multiple editors do not see your sources the same way that you believe; nevertheless, there is a consensus, and "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity". -- Alex^TW 15:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I urge you and the other editors to rereview the decision because RT and metacritic "who aren't 2 reviewers but sources for many others" clearly state "generally unfavorable". Listen45 (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It's clear what our opinions on the topic are, so I say again: If you have new sources to provide that give new light to this topic, clearly supporting your opinion with irrefutable evidence that would change the consensus, then please provide them. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 15:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

And as I stated, you and a few others aren't seeing RT and MC the same way many others do. They are realiable sources. Please reconsider the decision. Cheer.Listen45 (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You say many others. Can you provide the names of these editors that agree with your view on the sources? -- Alex^TW 15:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't excatly describe the many others but here is further proof the views on the show are mostly negative.

References

So, you were making up statistics for your argument? And what you have given is one negative review. Multiple positive reviews have also been given in the article. This doesn't support your argument any further. -- Alex^TW 15:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

There you go with your fucking accusations again. There are a few positive reviews as with any film and show but most of the reviews for this are negative. Again, rereview the decision because you are starting to piss me off.Listen45 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Please remain civil during discussions per the policy of WP:CIVIL, and you will find that things will go smoothly; attacking other editors will only solidify their opposition against your suggestions. There have been a mixture of positive and negative reviews, so unless you can provide multiple reliable statistics as to which one is greater, then it stays mixed. -- Alex^TW 15:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Listen45, see what I argued above. "Mixed" will be removed since it is not supported by the critical consensus whatsoever. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If you weren't aware, the above editor is blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry, so they cannot reply to you or contribute further. It won't be removed until there is consensus between editors on the issue. -- Alex^TW 16:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:Consensus is not carte blanche to ignore Wikipedia's rules. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. WP:Due is also policy and it is being violated in this case. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:DUE is part of WP:NPOV, which you really have no place to quote, given your biased post at WT:TV, instead of being neutral and allowing editors to form their own opinion; instead, you'd rather force the discussion one way. If any edits are carried out, page protection will be requested for anonymous editors. And now, repeating myself - stick to the one section. -- Alex^TW 17:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV applies to articles. It is not about WikiProject talk pages. And the report I made there is not biased since there are two viewpoints and I focused on what the lead says in contrast to what the overwhelming majority of sources say. I did not report that one side is claiming that "mixed" is the case and the other side is claiming otherwise. And make up their minds on what? It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of sources say that the series received overwhelmingly negative reviews. There is no disputing it. And I provided sources showing just that. The page is already, at the moment, protected from anonymous editors. And that won't change the fact that "mixed" will be removed. And I can reply in more than one section if I want to. Goodness knows that there is more than one section about this mess. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You believe that it's "fact" that it's entirely negative. So you attempted to force your view on neutral editors in what should have been a neutral post. Very bad faith of you, it seems you have no intent to discuss this properly. Mixed will not be removed until your posts are agreed upon. -- Alex^TW 17:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

"Fact" is different from "belief," and unless you can show that this fact is just an opinion and that the contrary opinion of "mixed" is a fact, you don't have a case. "Mixed" will be removed because there is literally nothing to support it. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It is unsourced. And if even if you source it, it's a WP:Due violation. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Your beliefs have been noted, and the article will remain as it is. -- Alex^TW 17:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

How much are you willing to bet that a WP:RfC will change that? 72.213.205.141 (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)`

Go ahead and submit one, but do learn how to begin it in a neutral fashion, you need to understand how to do that. -- Alex^TW 17:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It's understood that your definition of neutral contrasts mine. Before that RfC, maybe a report to the WP:Original research noticeboard or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard would be wise. In fact, I'll go ahead and alert the latter noticeboard. You know, neutrality and all. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I am coming down here simply because it is the bottom of the article and I am getting confused with all these different discussions about the same thing! I have been mostly staying out of this argument, but I thought I'd just join in now to say that I feel like the IP is sort of correct here. The sites that we usually go to (RT and MC) both say the series got negative reviews, and many reliable sources back that up and use terms like "panned". On the other hand, we do indeed have some more positive elements listed in our reception section that do make it hard to say that nothing positive has been said about the series. So, what about this wording?

The series received mostly negative reviews from critics, particularly for its pace and storytelling, underwhelming fight sequences, and Jones' performance. However, Henwick's performance as Colleen Wing and the use of established characters Claire Temple and Jeri Hogarth was met with some praise.

I feel like that satisfies both sides of the discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That is fine by me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm here from NPOV/N. Looking at some of the 20 sources the IP editor provided in a section above and what I could find after some google searches for reliable sources, it does seem that the consensus is that Iron Fist received overall negative reviews. As for "panned" that is used in quite a number of entertainment articles and seems to be pretty standard for WP, although I have always felt an objection to the term. I think Adamstom.97's suggestion above is reasonable. Hope some fresh eyes are helpful in this. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Like some other people said alex, change the damn consensus to negative or face being banned for abuse of power.2601:18C:8601:AFF4:4840:2D1A:F094:5699 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Well that's not going anywhere and should probably be removed from the talk page. I think whether it is "mixed" or "generally negative" or etc. is a reasonable discussion. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Then it wouldn't be a talk page but a dictatorship if I'm censored.2601:18C:8601:AFF4:4840:2D1A:F094:5699 (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not censoring if it is a clear violation of personal attacks per WP:NPA. And your comment makes zero sense - how does one person change the consensus of multiple editors? -- Alex^TW 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, the IP seems to be talking about the critical consensus summary, not editors' consensus. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with adamstom97. Thank you, adamstom97, for your proposal. I also thank Favre1fan93, DIYeditor and Cyphoidbomb (who commented in the "'Mixed to negative' is unsourced" discussion above). I don't agree with use of "panned"; I find that unencyclopedic. It's not the wording that WP:TV and WP:FILM editors use.

If we now have a consensus, which it seems that we do, who will make the change to the article? 72.213.205.141 (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hatting condescension, off-topic stuff.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See what you can do with a proper discussion? Or did you still want to submit that RFC? -- AlexTW 15:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Do save the condescending tone. I'm not an inexperienced Wikipedia editor, as should be obvious by my familiarity with policies, projects, noticeboards and whatnot. Stay on-topic. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Just wondering, anon. I'd be happy to start it for you, if you'd like. -- AlexTW 16:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Sighs. If you want to start one and waste more time, feel free. The outcome will be the same, and that benefits me. Not you. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC) So, it was an attempt at a threat. Cheers for that, anon. -- AlexTW 16:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC) So your idea of a threat is as skewed as your definition of WP:Consensus and WP:Neutral. Yeah, when Hijiri88 suggested an RfC in the "Stop changing the critical reception term" discussion above, that was a threat too. Riiiight. A threat to your beloved "mixed" terminology. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Basically. Either that, or I know what I'm doing after three years here. Anyways: Stay on-topic. -- AlexTW 16:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC) "Basically" is correct. It's not "either," except for knowing how to WP:Bait. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Basically, yeah. Funnily enough, I wasn't the only editor who had an issue with how completely un-neutral you were; you even just thanked them. [22] -- AlexTW 16:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Oh, I saw that. And I disagree. And either way, I was and am still right about the WP:Neutral violation that you were endorsing at this article. You were the main one insisting that we continue to retain "mixed," despite the fact that it is unsupported. Just wow. And there you go again with the off-topic...ness. Wikipedia is so lovely with its passive-aggressive editors. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Yes, we know you disagree. We too disagree with you. Especially how you think you're still right. I still support it. And yes, we do clearly edit here only for the pleasure of the anon's. Funny how you want to stay on-topic while not doing so yourself. Cheers. -- AlexTW 16:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Who is "we"? It's just you and Cyphoidbomb disagreeing with the way I worded a post at WP:TV. That does not matter. What matters is following Wikipedia's rules about articles. WP:Neutral is a rule, and you were actively violating it in regard to this article. Cyphoidbomb supports use of "generally negative," as do others who have commented since I brought up this dispute again. So, yes, I was and am right that "mixed" is wrong. You can pout and divert all you want to. It will not change that fact. I have stayed on-topic. You have not. You are desperately trying to derail the consensus (true consensus this time) that threatens your "mixed" wording. It won't work. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Stay on-topic. And nah mate, I'm chill with the consensus. I don't like it, and I won't implement it, but when it is added, I won't have an issue with it. So, do try to stick to what you actually know, lad. Cheerio. -- AlexTW 16:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Sighs. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC) What a contribution. -- AlexTW 16:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC) WP:Last word: I allow you to have it. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Alex, (Redacted) Arguing with others constantly will be considered violating the WP Civil Policy and I will have your reported.Superpants1993 (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:AFF4:1CB9:4E6:132A:7BA3 (talk)

If you two are finished, I would ask whether there are any objections to my suggested wording? If not, I'll go ahead and make the change, and hopefully we can all move on from this. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I don't have a problem with it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Adamstom.97's proposal works. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

"In response to the criticism of Danny Rand as a white savior"

Umm... what criticism is this referring to? I mean, I know what it is talking about because I've read off-wiki discussion of the matter, but this is apparently the first time the issue is mentioned in the article. I'm sorry if I'm missing; I read the Jones entry in the "Cast" section, and "Ctrl+F"ed "white", "Asian", "race" and "raci-". This should probably either be rewritten to reflect the fact that the controversy is not mentioned elsewhere, or (preferably) some other discussion of the criticism from the point of view of the critics should be added further up the article to justify our citing of the creators' responses. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

There have been a few discussions about this that have now been archived I think. I personally plan to do work on the article including expanding on this criticism at some point, but I don't know when I will get round to it. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Mary Walker

Mary Walker appears in season 2 of Iron First. At no point does the show mention her comic book name "Typhoid Mary". I suggest dropping the word "Typhoid" from the cast section. -- 109.78.201.13 (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)