Talk:Old Fashioned (film)

Edit Warring

Further reversions should be discussed here rather than going back and forth. As explained in edit notes, right now there's a 3:1 negative to positive review ratio, which about matches the RT scoring (should be closer to 4:1, but I digress). Please leave it be. Buh6173 (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and for why "Awards" doesn't need its own subheader, it's a single award from a single group that doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article. That doesn't warrant a subheader. Buh6173 (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The awards section is for ease of article viewing on mobile devices, not personal preference. I'm here as a third opinion, please see WP:3 for details. --BeowulfBrower (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

So since I opened this discussion, no discussion has been had.

I guess I can't say I expected much else.

At any rate, that one award, again, does not merit its own section. It fits into reception just fine. This is also not a matter of preference, it's a matter of logistics. You don't give a single line its own subheader.

Oh, and for the record, the "self-inserted" review that was reverted wasn't by me. It was here since February, and was placed back and forth before I got here. Buh6173 (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been two days since it was requested that debate be moved here, and no one else has chosen to discuss. Can the page please be unlocked again, and if edit warring should continue, have conversations delegated to here? I'm perfectly willing to communicate, but it's apparent to me that nobody else is since I'm the only one posting in here. Buh6173 (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, all. Sorry to keep you waiting. I'm not on Wikipedia every day. This isn't an obsession with me. And all apologies for edit-warring; I’m still learning my way around Wikipedia and didn’t even realize that’s what was happening. Won’t happen again (at least not from me).

As requested, I left *all* the negative stuff on the page 100% as it was and simply added some brief, objective (and cited) info -- all of which repeatedly got deleted. To me, it seems like someone has an ax to grind with the film and wants *only* negative stuff posted -- to the point of not even leaving alone the single positive review on the page but cherry picking and adding negative comments from that review. And also deleting the report from boxofficemojo.com even though it is a cited news fact and has nothing whatsoever to do with opinion. So be it.

I don't have the time or energy to debate this stuff at great length every single day, so if it is anyone's mission in life to pummel this film into oblivion, that person will likely win.

Thanks for the eye-opening and fascinating tutorial on how Wikipedia really works and what it’s actually all about; it has definitely impacted and changed how I will read and use and regard this site in the future. Best wishes. BobnJesse (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the "single positive review" was a 2.5 out of 4 review, i.e. decent but mediocre. Not positive. The way it was phrased within the quote made it sound like a glowing review; I rephrased it to include negative comments but to still have a more positive edge, which is more indicative of the actual review. I merged the opening weekend report into the sales paragraph, I didn't delete it. While it's reasonable for positive reception to be on the page, it should be indicative of the overall view of the film, which was rather negative. As such, I'd personally say that it's most reasonable to have the Variety, LA Times, Midnight Screenings, and Glenn Kenny review (so long as the latter is kept in perspective and not purposed to sound like showering praise). The box office information can also be left alone; that has nothing to do with critical reception. Buh6173 (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)]

It's actually 2.5 out of 3. Attempting to change a "relativity favorable review" into a "less negative review' certainly seems indicative of someone with an axe to grind. The page now seems to contain all the information anyone could readily want for the film. Should events arise in the future that necessitate further writing on the subject of this film, then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I vote to keep the page locked, if only to encourage more productive editing elsewhere. --BeowulfBrower (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Look at the other reviews on the site; it's a formatting thing. For instance, a 1.5 review will only show 1 full star and a half star and not the other blank stars. The highest reviews on the site is a 4/4, which is the grading scale. So no, it's not "relatively favorable", it's a C+ rating, so I think it's fair to phrase it as a mixed bag on the positive side as opposed to gleaming with praise. http://www.rogerebert.com/ Buh6173 (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The present revision is then, by that standard, perfect. --BeowulfBrower (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I would argue otherwise. The Midnight Screenings review, while one of the most damning, was also the first review on here, and it adds a nice bit of variety from Variety and the LA Times. The phrasing of the Glenn Kenny review is still a bit off; instead of "relatively favorable", perhaps "somewhat more positive", and also put the negative prior to the positive (seeing how it was more of a positive review, ending on a positive note would fit better). Also, reception aside, it's rather wasteful to have a whole new header for "Awards" when it's literally just one award. Yes I know it makes it easier for navigation, but one minor award? That really should just be under the Reception section. Buh6173 (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few more changes as per the discussion in here. Are they suitable enough? Buh6173 (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Rehashing your prior revision and claiming that you're rephrasing it "based on discussion on the talk page" do not constitute reaching a consensus as discussed in wp:con The article has plenty of information, with both sides adequately represented. Furthermore, your edit of the latter paragraph is laden with bias. Please actually discuss changes on the talk page prior to making new edits. Thank you, --BeowulfBrower (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been discussing. I can't help it if I wait a day and nobody actually replies.

Anywho, how is my "edit" of the latter paragraph "laden with bias"? As previously mentioned, the review was on par with a C+ review; as such, including both negative and positive points in the review is most indicative of it. Besides, all I really did was organize the preexisting phrasing so that the negative came before the positive, so that it would end on a positive note. How is that "biased"? Buh6173 (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

For starters, you reverted the review that Andrzejbanas deleted without an edit summery explaining why. Secondly, you reduced the content and took out part of the review that lent context to the snippet you kept. How it read previously, it kept some indication of praise which makes it an exception to the several reviews above. As an aside, discussing changes with yourself is not reaching a consensus. More rightly so, it's a symptom of Logorrhea.

Furthermore, your last 25 edits have been on this film without making a single contribution elsewhere. That alone should constitute a bias, or a least some degree of fanaticism.--BeowulfBrower (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What content did I reduce? If you're talking about the Glenn Kenny review, the only portion I removed was "It’s incredibly rare to see an American movie with a Christian perspective", which was just beating around the bush to his point that it's "more invested in philosophizing and empathizing than in eschatological pandering". If you feel that strongly about that part of the quote, then fine, you can keep it; it doesn't add or subtract anything, it's just fluff. And it's not so much that I'm "discussing changes with myself", it's that I brought up other changes and there was silence for a full 24 hours, so my options were to either sit around and do nothing or make what was really a pretty minor change and hope there wasn't a kneejerk insta-revert, which apparently there was. As for why I've been sticking with this article, generally I stick to the One Piece wiki, and rarely bother to edit anything on here except when I find things that are out of place, and since I had checked the article back in February or March or so, it was clear that someone with a strong bias in the opposite direction was trying to spin the story, so I attempted to right the fact that a movie that was critically panned was sprinkled with little nudges to make it sound like an underground masterpiece. As for why I think the Brad Jones review should be in there, as I've said before, it adds a different voice to the conversation, plus it's probably one of the most in-depth reviews of the film (the video's about 50-60 minutes long). Buh6173 (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

With the "nudges" no longer extant, I believe that a balance has been reached. I doubt that you or BobnJesse would be totally happy with how the page has reviews now, which is generally indicative of a compromise. --BeowulfBrower (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That's always a terrible excuse. Personally I'd be happy without that award mention because that really is cherry picking, but I'm not going to bother with that. The only two things that remain changed are the Midnight Screenings review and the rephrasing of the Glenn Kenny review to actually sound more indicative of his actual review, neither of which you've provided with a real, credible reason for leaving out. All I want is to put those back to the way they were and then I'll leave this article alone. Buh6173 (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

So aside from "everyone's unhappy" (which is still a bad argument; you could remove every review and everyone would be unhappy, and while that would be "compromise" it wouldn't make the article better), there's been no real arguments over why not to keep the changes I mentioned. Adding back a review that was taken out (and was not originally added by me, I should mention) will not take away from the positive review, and rephrasing the positive review to end on a positive instead of a negative will not change it either. BobnJesse apparently has decided to stay out of this conversation after speaking his(?) piece, so this is no longer an edit war between me and him. As such, because I'm basically talking in an echo chamber here, I'd say it's safe to put the article back to the way it was before unless I hear arguments otherwise within the next day, because waiting until I make a change to speak in here doesn't help conversation. Buh6173 (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If you feel the need to add more bloat to the list of negative reviews, then I'll leave it to another editor to revert it (as has been done previously). Concerning the second paragraph, it's already written in a NPOV, and does not really require further "editing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeowulfBrower (talk • contribs) 23:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. Can’t be here all the time. Already conceded that others appear far more committed to controlling and policing this page than I am able to be, alas. In any event…

What “nudges” were given to misrepresent anything? I did three things:

1. Add the stat about the film breaking a modest box office record, which it did (cited news fact, not opinion). It was first deleted (by someone) then later reworded and buried.

2. Add the ICVM awards and redo the Awards subtitle to how it was (I didn’t create this… it’s how it was, then someone deleted). Again, this isn’t some manipulated opinion, it’s cited fact. No one is misrepresenting that this is Sundance or anything. Again, this was edited to minimize and bury (but restored by editor).

3. Re-add a shortened version of the Glenn Kenny quote that someone else posted on this page months ago, but was deleted by another user. For the record, this was the original posting (not mine):

The film also found some support from mainstream critics as well. Most notably, Glenn Kenny writing for rogerebert.com wrote: "It’s incredibly rare to see an American movie with a Christian perspective that’s more invested in philosophizing and empathizing than in eschatological pandering, and for that alone Old Fashioned deserves commendation. The movie’s also very well acted and beautifully shot... Old Fashioned is both unusual and intelligent enough that, despite it not being entirely MY cup of tea, I’m hoping that it’ll succeed at doing at least a little more than addressing the converted."

(That’s a pretty balanced, un-manipulated mixed-bag representation of the review; why it wasn’t originally left alone I have no idea.)

From my perspective, it is more than a little obvious that someone is oddly obsessed with 1. Burying, subverting, or totally negating *anything* positive about this film and 2. Ensuring above all that the Brad Jones Internet review be on this page?!?

For the record, I personally left that review alone (as requested). But that wasn’t enough. And here we are. Reading all of the above and trying to follow the logic is exhausting.

Again, I added one positive (C+, B-, mixed, whatever) review (leaving the RT, etc. info and the BJ quote as is and *untouched* which provided ample negative, colorful commentary). Also, the film did break a modest box office record and also won some awards. None of those things are “cherry picking” at all; they are cited facts that happen to be positive (all of which Buh6173 tried and is trying to gut, bury, or minimize). Was the film critically slammed? Yes. Did the film also happen to find an audience that appreciated it? Yes. Both are true.

I never claimed (nor would I) that this film is any kind of “underground masterpiece” and, honestly, if I had known what adding those minor edits would lead to I likely would have just left it alone. I simply can’t be on here every day debating this stuff.

But, since I am here right now, to respond as requested and weigh in officially: I think that the Buh6173 analysis and edit of Glenn Kenny’s quote is absolutely comical in its bias. Even how I had already positioned it as “relatively favorable” hinted that it wasn’t full-on gushing. If anyone wants to go read the full reviews (good or bad), they are all available elsewhere. Further, if I had gone outside the scope of RT reviews alone (as the BJ quote is), I could have used quotes from reviews that are indeed 100% praise and full-on gushing -- but I didn’t; that didn’t seem fair-game to me. Maybe I should I have, in retrospect (or another “fresh” one from RT). To answer the question as to why leave the Glenn Kenny as it was originally posted: It’s there to provide positive balance to the page (there is plenty of negative); not post the entire review -- it's a snippet! And I didn’t manipulate or “puff up” those words at all; they are exactly what was written by GK. If you insist on also including negative from the review, then you should also jump to the very end of the review and also include GK’s closing remarks, which are indeed positive (if reserved). What Buh6173 is doing is like me insisting that you add “David George’s warm-hued color lensing is quite attractive” to the Variety quote. I know this is ridiculous, just making a point. Why does the positive entry have to include negative? If the positive must include negative, then the negative must include positive (again, I don’t believe this but am trying to illuminate how lopsided all this is).

Also, if you’re going to give credit to Variety and the Los Angeles Times in the negative, equity would require you also mention rogerebert.com as a source (as it was) in the positive.

Regardless, it seems like Buh6173 wants the autonomy to hand-pick the most brutal reviews (not mixed-negative ones) and have them fully protected (and 100% negative) while also doing a hatchet job to anything positive. Not remotely equitable. Lastly, the argument to include the BJ quote because it adds a “different voice” to the conversation could be said about *any* additional quote added. But again, I don’t have a dog in that fight; I left that BJ quote alone and none of this (to me) was ever about having that quote removed. But, now with this insistence to have it re-inserted… well, that does seem singularly peculiar. Even so, I trust and will defer to the editors’ judgment on that.

Perhaps the only truly neutral thing to do would be to remove all the actual review snippets and leave only the RT, etc. aggregate info and leave it to others to search and read reviews. I don’t know; I’m somewhat at a loss here. I’m certainly not demanding to be appeased in any way or that any reviews be added or removed or that other reviews be tweaked by me to satisfy my slanted wishes in order for me to leave the page alone.

Nixing all review snippets would render the page leaning more wholly negative (not ideal), but so be it. At least that would put an end to this silliness. Also, at some point, I’d like to add some other (objective) info like soundtrack listing, festival screenings, etc. In any event, I’m more than happy to let this unfruitful “debate” die and move on.

I know I’m new here, but the primary purpose of a Wikipedia page is the neutral sharing of facts and information, yes? Not for haters to pile on the negative, nor for cheerleaders to try and turn it into a PR tool, yes? That’s my understanding, anyway… and that seems reasonable. If I’m incorrect, please advise.

As a compromise to all of the above, how about…

1. Let Buh6173 do whatever he wants for the negative. Which, I’m sure, will still far outweigh any positive.

2. Revert the positive to the original Glenn Kenny quote (in full) as posted by someone else, not me (see above).

3. Leave everything else as is.

Fair? BobnJesse (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I did source the quote to rogerebert.com, which was canceled in the blanket reversion of my final edit. Also, please explain to me how this is a "mixed opinion" quote.

"It’s incredibly rare to see an American movie with a Christian perspective that’s more invested in philosophizing and empathizing than in eschatological pandering, and for that alone Old Fashioned deserves commendation. The movie’s also very well acted and beautifully shot... Old Fashioned is both unusual and intelligent enough that, despite it not being entirely MY cup of tea, I’m hoping that it’ll succeed at doing at least a little more than addressing the converted."

Everything in that statement is positive except "despite it not being entirely MY cup of tea", which is more of a shrug than an indictment. What about this phrasing?

The film received some support from mainstream critics. Glenn Kenny writing for rogerebert.com stated that while "Swartzwelder does tend to lay things on a little thick", the film is "more invested in philosophizing and empathizing than in eschatological pandering" and is "very well acted and beautifully shot".

Has a slight negative, but primarily positive. Is that fine? As for the awards thing, fine; if you think that it's "burying the truth" if that's merged with Reception, then fine, it can have its own subheader. Are those changes fair, then? Buh6173 (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

BobnJesse I think a soundtrack listing would be a fine idea; the listing can be found here. I'll add it in the morning, unless you feel like doing it (someone should write a script to make it less tedious). I second the 3 main points you made. --BeowulfBrower (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

BeowulfBrower Thanks! Appreciate you trying to keep all of this neutral and balanced. Will try and do soundtrack later (thanks for info).

Buh6173 Did you read what I wrote? I'm not trying to micromanage your cherry picked negative comments at all... and you still refuse to leave the Kenny quote alone? Like you pointed out, he says it isn't "his cup of tea" (re: mixed). It is a reserved recommendation, but it is "fresh" on RT, and it is definitely positive. They way you gut the flow of *his* words to serve your bias is intrusive and manipulative in the extreme. So, no, those changes aren't fair. The quote is there for positive balance (as stated). I think the fair thing is for you to leave that *one* quote alone... no one is insisting that you find some positive aspect to pull from your negative selects (i.e. the Variety article complimenting the cinematography). Why is this such an issue for you? Can we please move on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobnJesse (talk • contribs) 01:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the quote, phrased as is, makes it sound like an incredibly positive review. If you'd rather rephrase it to make it sound properly mixed, be my guest, but the current phrasing still sounds like a 3.5/4 review or something like that. I guess it is nitpicking, but it's misrepresentative is what it is. What's wrong with the way I phrased it? It still includes and focuses on his core concepts, that he found it philosophizing rather than preaching and that it's shot beautifully and acted well. Buh6173 (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I'd like to point out that the "glacial" comment in the review wasn't even added by me; BeowulfBrower put it in there. So if anything, me taking it out is trying to make the review more positive. Buh6173 (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, it is indeed "nitpicking". And tiring. I'm not manipulating or gutting the words of GK, I'm trying to let them speak for themselves. Even though BeowulfBrower already seconded my 3 main points for resolution and leaving the GK quote as it was originally posted by the other user, in the hopes of putting an end to this, how about:

The film also found some support from mainstream critics as well. Most notably, Glenn Kenny writing for rogerebert.com stated that while "Swartzwelder does tend to lay things on a little thick… It’s incredibly rare to see an American movie with a Christian perspective that’s more invested in philosophizing and empathizing than in eschatological pandering, and for that alone Old Fashioned deserves commendation. The movie’s also very well acted and beautifully shot... Old Fashioned is both unusual and intelligent enough that, despite it not being entirely MY cup of tea, I’m hoping that it’ll succeed at doing at least a little more than addressing the converted." BobnJesse (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Cut it off at "well acted and beautifully shot"; beyond that it's rambling, and already the positive and negative points came across. Buh6173 (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, okay... you win! Change made as approved by you. We can all move on now, yes? BobnJesse (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It would appear that a certain someone forgot to read WP:OWN --BeowulfBrower (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, "film festival screenings"?

I've never seen any kind of section like that on any other film's page. Why is that even there? Buh6173 (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It's on *a lot* of other film pages; here's just one for reference (formatted differently):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Trying_to_Break_Your_Heart:_A_Film_About_Wilco#Film_festival_screenings

This is objective data about the film (contains 0% opinion). Isn't that the purpose of the page? BobnJesse (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

BeowulfBrower Need your help. After getting approval from all here for the lone positive critic response on the page (and even conceding more than needed to appease) and leaving all the negative stuff 100% alone, Buh6173 has gone back in and is now re-editing that comment on the page (even though he/she approved my edit). Out of respect for this process, I'm not undoing/reverting, but am bringing it up here. I've got to move on to other things now, but I just wanted you to know. I realize that Wikipedia is collaborative editing (and I'm green), but this all seems a little out of control and fanatical. Best regards. BobnJesse (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

BobnJesse After reviewing it, I think the current revision should stand. I will continue to monitor the article to ensure that a WP:NPOV is maintained.

I'm very sorry that, as a green editor, you had to deal with this sort of behavior. Contrary to the minority views evident here, Wikipedia greatly encourages boldly editing articles. As long as your addition is relevant and cited, it almost always is worth adding (as yours was). Sometimes you'll get an editor who keeps referencing loose interpretations of the "rules" of Wikipedia in an effort to promote their agenda, to which I refer you to the most important rule of all. Your edits are more than welcome, and level-headed editors are of the best caliber. I certainly hope you continue to make additions and revisions here, as it is always greatly appreciated. --BeowulfBrower (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. Is it okay to re-insert the "writing for rogerebert.com" since that carries real weight and puts the quote on the same playing field as Variety and The Los Angeles Times (mentioned above)? Not that big of a deal, just wanted to check. 'Til next time... BobnJesse (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I consolidated them because we try to avoid bare-linking, clinking the name Glenn Kenny takes you directly to the article.--BeowulfBrower (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally I prefer "writing for rogerebert.com", since the link is in the reference and no other reviews just have a straight link on the page; it sticks out like a sore thumb. Buh6173 (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

BeowulfBrower Don't want to revert or edit war in any way, but the "critical reception" section is now adding even more Brad Jones material/links. Is this appropriate? Seems more about his promotion than the film itself. Will leave in your hands. Thanks. BobnJesse (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Awards

My address at a local high school won the "Best Speech Ever" award from the "SummerPhD's Mom's Speech Awards".<ref>Summer's Mom</ref>

Kramer vs. Kramer received nine Oscar nominations at the 52nd Academy Awards, winning five: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (for Hoffman), Best Supporting Actress (for Streep), and Best Adapted Screenplay.<ref>New York Times, UPI, AP, Chicago Tribune, etc.</ref>

Obviously, my mom's award -- though meaningful to me -- is not notable. The award itself and the collection of awards are both redlinks. No one but my mom (and now me) reported on it.

The Oscar's, OTOH, are clearly meaningful, notable awards. The awards organization, that year's awards and each of the individual awards are all notable. As for independent reliable sources covering them, take your pick.

While there is a yawning chasm between the two, the general idea still holds. There are thousands of film festivals with hundreds of thousands of awards. There are countless more from various magazines, TV shows, newspapers, and websites of every imaginable variety. Most of them are meaningless. This is a matter of weight. If it is a widely held opinion that the special effects, directing, script, cinematography, etc. were exemplary, independent reliable sources will cover that. NASA and some random crank living in the high desert both have opinions on the shape of the Earth and the strength of the evidence. They both have their own websites. NASA's statements, however, are covered by independent sources (unconnected with NASA). - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I see the list of non-notable awards from non-notable film festivals has been restored, based on the bad faith assumption that I have some kind of bias against this film.

To simplify, "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability. Because of the proliferation of film festivals and "award mills", festival awards should be added with discretion, with inclusion subject to consensus. Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not included." Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Accolades Comments? - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Nearly three months without a response. That's certainly enough. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)