Talk:Roger Ebert/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

On films about African Americans

"He reacts very strongly to films about the lives of African Americans." Reacts strongly how? Positively, negatively? And why? This statement seems quite out of place and is unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.184.190 (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Rebert account was only active for two days

Note that Special:Contributions/Rebert only shows activity for two days in November 2004, and, of course, it is difficult to verify that this was really Mr. Ebert or just a good imposter. One might even ask if the "Notable Wikipedian" template is appropriate. 69.181.82.221 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Roger Ebert was here!

I'd just like to point out that I am fairly sure Roger Ebert himself has edited this page. user:J.J.

Checking history, you seem to be right: User:Rebert {comments there not his}. Of course, there's nothing wrong with this whatsoever, as long as the end result is NPOV &c. It looks like they were useful entries, though.--Dhartung | Talk 17:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that such a user is the true man. However, he has given praise to Wikipedia in the past (on his website, I believe). --AWF

I'm not sure either, although Ebert is known for being an active web user. Although I doubt he would credit a picture as "his own" picture. He shows up on Rotten Tomatoes once in awhile.--Amynewyork4248 16:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He referenced Wikipedia from his "Nacho Libre" review. Aaрон Кинни (t) 09:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at his edit history, it seems the majority of his contributions (which are only a few, during a two day stint) included providing images and a couple links. It has to be him. --Fightingirish 14:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Critical Life

Does the link in the Critical Life section to TheaterHopper.com [1] really have a point? Ebert is a Pulitzer prize winner. I don't think TheaterHopper has anything interesting to say about Ebert. The opinion of someone with credentials in film criticism would be more valuable than a link to a rather weak comic strip. --24.159.243.214 07:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The only point is that there's been a push in Wikipedia for citing all opinions, and I thought that link had a good summary of Ebert's style of reviewing v. someone like Roeper. If you have a better source, use it. - Lifefeed 15:22, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I understand. I think the opinion is valid and interesting, but if TheaterHopper is the only source we can find, I'm afraid I think it should just be removed. TheaterHopper isn't nearly authoritative enough to be encyclopedic about this issue — a better source is required. Unfortunately I couldn't find a good source myself. Many years ago there was an amusing exchange between Roger and Gene concerning populism vs. elitism. After Gene asserted that he was more populist than Roger, Roger replied that his film criticsm was more populist and more cerebral — he had Gene surrounded. --165.189.91.148 17:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

I moved the "pop culture trivia" section over to Siskel & Ebert where it's more appropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 00:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bit role?

Someone said Ebert had a bit role in Stranger Than Paradise. Poker player. any confirmation? GangofOne 06:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

If so, he fails to disclose it in his review. Nor does IMDb confirm. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Controversy?

How about a controversy section? I'd be happy to go ahead and do the research, but I don't want to bother if it's just going to get deleted. Possible incidents would include Ebert's political comments in his reviews which have drawn fire from right-wing pundits, and his initial negative review of Brown Bunny and subsequent public feud with its creator. -- Jamiem

Totally agree; the Brown Bunny incident was notorious (and hilarious). 66.131.51.64 04:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur. As the most popular critic in America and on the Internet, the number of incidents involving Ebert are numerous.

According to the "Birth of a Nation" article, it says that Ebert gave the movie a good review...is this true? I think this qualifies as a controversial issue.

He listed it in his Great films section, but he put other Griffith movies first. He says of it "The film represents how racist a white American could be in 1915 without realizing he was racist at all." Although he indicates most of the racism is in the third act and concedes it has a visual beauty and narrative power. Whether it's a good review is kind of a matter of opinion, but I think largely he found it to be historically important despite its repulsive aspects. The full review is here.[2]--T. Anthony 03:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

He did give it a good review, but I'm not sure how that can be construed as controversial.--Amynewyork4248 16:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This is akin to labeling Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn controversial because of the language the characters use. --Dhartung | Talk 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a poor analogy. Twain's book, in the context of its time, is very much anti-racist, even if it contains some offensive language. Birth of a Nation is overtly racist, plain and simple. I agree, however, that it's a bit of a stretch to call Ebert's defense of the film's undeniable artistic merits "controversial." The AFI's praise for the film generated some controversy, but I am unaware that Ebert's heavily qualified review did. marbeh raglaim 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

i would also like to point out that many other people list it as one of the greatest films mostly because it was the first of its kind. if it had come, say, 5 years later we would only remember it as a racist movie. 08:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You know nothing about film. Stop. 74.212.17.148 05:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I hold the viewpoint "professional" critics are irrelevant and one should look at how well the film does within one's own circles of interest - social piers and websites that share opinions that parallel your own point of view - I'll refrain from suggesting that that be added to the page. I will, however, suggest the controversy that stems from him being old and out of touch, and not viewing video games as art - despite growing and mounting evidence to the contrary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.159.243 (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Married on 50th or 51st Birthday?

I could have sworn that I once read or heard that Ebert married on his 50th birthday, but according to this article it was his 51st. Did I just remember incorrectly, was I misinformed, or did Ebert and his wife get engaged or something a year earlier on his 50th? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.119.54 (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Does Roger Ebert smoke?

Can anybody inquire into his past, and whether he once smoked, and then had to give it up because of doctor's recommendations?

I don't believe so. There hasn't been an indication that I've read to support this, though I may be wrong. --AWF

he has said in a recent journal entry that he has never smoked a day in his life. here, its a response to a question http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/siskel_ebert_the_jugular.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.139.125 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Is Andrew Dice Clay's opinion of Ebert really relevant to the article? I could see the opinions of other reviewers being of interest, but a hack like Clay? Does it really matter? Seems more like gossip than encyclopedia material.Michael Dorosh 15:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, anonymous editors seem to be reinserting Clay's comments. Basically, all that says is that an actor got a bad review and called Ebert a bad name. What is the point of including it? Can someone post something vaguely reasonable in favour of keeping the material? I'm not seeing it.Michael Dorosh 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this would require a publication's or famous blog's written opinion to include this, but Ebert has been "known" to often (and not just occasionally) pan well-recieved movies and like poorly-rated ones. For example, I have heard that he "famously panned star wars when it first came out" (this coming from someone from a forum). The review I found on his site praised it, but I smell revisionism. And also, he gave The Da Vinci Code 3 stars, and I'm out of specific examples but I remember many comments from the Adult Swim Message Boards... Blueaster 05:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What idiot told you he panned Star Wars? The review of the original version has four stars, the movie is listed as a "Great Movie" and the Special Edition got four stars. 152.23.196.162 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Slightly more specific criticism I've heard is that he lets politics and attractiveness bias his reviews. On politics he seems to admit that he does let his politics sway his reviews at times and will talk politics in his review. His politics is in most respects Left/liberal as in favoring drug legalization, supporting racial minority interests, feminist-leaning, anti-corporation, anti-Republican Party, etc.(Although he got in a fight with Michael Moore about Oscar Night, he felt Moore was indeed booed, he's generally been very supportive of his films) Generally hostile to Communism or authoritarian Left though. On attractiveness I remember someone indicating he "goes easier" on a movie when he finds the lead actress really sexy. For example his review of Gigli was almost positive and he spoke favorably of the speech Jennifer Lopez gave in it concerning the vagina.--T. Anthony 06:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The other thing he did which really grated on me is he said in a review that Lahore was the capital of Pakistan. I know that might sound petty, but I was still a bit floored an educated Pulitzer Prize winner would mix that up.--T. Anthony 06:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ebert very often gets small details like that wrong - to his credit, I suppose, he leaves them intact on his website. Often the details he muddles up are explained in the movies. I don't have any specific examples at the moment but have noticed this trend in the past, so his faux pas with Lahore is not alone - certainly can't be intentional either.Michael Dorosh 16:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ebert's not a detail type of person. I've noticed that his plot summaries often contain inaccuracies about the movie under discussion. Of course, none of this belongs in the article if it's just our personal observations. marbeh raglaim 01:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you will need a bit more evidence than an Internet message board to support the claim that he panned Star Wars. I have his 1990 book, and it has what I assume to be his original review of Star Wars, which he called an "out-of-body experience." Furthermore, on his top-10 list from 1977 [3] he clearly includes Star Wars. To have fabricated all this would require a good deal more than revisionism: it would be a flat-out coverup, and there's no evidence Ebert has done anything of the kind anywhere else: for example, he didn't excise his negative review of A Clockwork Orange, and he has more than once admitted to being mistaken or changing his mind about films in the past. marbeh raglaim 15:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

He didn't pan Star Wars ANH. He did, however, state that Return of the Jedi was the "most interesting" of the trilogy and that "The Empire strikes back" was the least. I can't remember how he defined "interesting", but I know which of the two I'd rather see.

Nope, that's not right either. Taken straight from his review of TESB: "The Empire Strikes Back is the best of three Star Wars films, and the most thought-provoking." Taken straight from his 1997 review of ROTJ: "If I had to choose, I would say this is the least of the Star Wars films." 152.23.196.162 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You're quoting from his reviews of the re-released 1997 editions. The previous user, I believe, was talking about his reviews when the movies were first released back in the '80s. That said, I have his 1990 book, and his review of ROTJ (presumably based on his 1983 review) does not say anything about it being the weakest of the trilogy. marbeh raglaim 07:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As for his liberal bias, I think that's a valid criticism, but I should point out that he has always been forthright about it. I personally believe that he (along with most other critics) was very generous about Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, but it's worth mentioning that he also gave a positive review to Michael Moore Hates America, and he's shown a willingness to reevaluate Moore's films when presented with evidence of the distortions contained in them. marbeh raglaim 15:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Yes, he's given a fair number of pulpy films good reviews, like The Da Vinci Code and, as I just added to the article, Speed 2 (he's also admitted to liking breasts on-screen, though not gratuitously), though far more negative ones. He also tends to say very nice things about liberal-leaning films (though he gave the manipulative Life of David Gale zero stars), but do remember that most identifiably ideological films that get reviewed in any major metropolitan paper are liberal-leaning. --zenohockey 05:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

University of Chicago

He doesn't not teach a class at the University of Chicago. The class is taught downtown and costs money to everyone, including University of Chicago students.

So he does teach a course at Uni of Chicago? Optimus Sledge 14:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No, he doesn't, but he doesn't not teach it downtown and it costs money to everyone for him to not teach it, and that includes Univ. of Chicago students. ;-) 152.23.196.162 22:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I don't not completely not follow you now. NotOptimus Sledge 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Iffy edit

Is it OK to say in the article that he hates Protestants? He bashed them once during a recording of Siskel and Ebert 156.34.208.149 16:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You'd need to come up with a date and a source, and ultimately you'd be constrained to "On DATE during X, Ebert stated that STATEMENT", preferably with a link to your source and any media coverage. Writing involves a lot of time-consuming hard work. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What is being referred to is a humorous (if decidedly off-color) little rant he gives (along with several other equally un-PC rants) in a well-known outtake segment from when he and Siskel were filming promos for their show. The entire thing is done with a mocking tone, and I think somebody would really need to be looking hard for something to get upset about to actually put any credence in any of it. (And the clip itself is hilarious, for what it's worth - a large part of it is simply he and Siskel trading insults with each other.)

Damn vandals...

I thought he was dead for a second there —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.238.117 (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

• Somebody had another try a few days ago 84.188.227.208 22:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Roger Moore?

I just saw this line in the controversy section: "has given positive reviews for even the most mediocre left leaning movie (anything by Roger Moore for example)". Mistake surely? If it said "mediocre left eyebrow raising movie" I would understand. Perhaps the author meant to write Michael Moore? Beanhead McGinty 10:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• • haha clever!

Ebert's distaste for Imovie

When Ebert reviewed Sarah Silverman's "Jesus is Magic" on his At the Movies program, he said it looked like it had been edited with Imovie. For over a year now, I've been wondering what was the basis for his cryptic observation. Was he implying that Imovie is just plain hard to use, or produces inferior edits? Or was his attempt to nail Jesus is Magic a Freudian manifestation of his desire to nail something else, and - groping for words - he bandied about the "Imovie" reference, this being the product of a deepseated desire nearly all day long nearly bursting from his lips, all of this at the drop of the proverbial hat, merely because, because - words almost fail me here - everybody else was doing so? Sure would be nice if he could clear his Imovie reference up. I never realized Ebert was such a nut case, although I have enjoyed his reviews and regret his bout with cancer. Hope he recovers fully. 198.177.27.20 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

do you mean iMovie? --Orange Mike 23:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he said iMovie because it's a common, non-high-end editing system avaliable on most Macs. Er go, he could have equally said "it looked like it was edited on someone's home computer instead of at a professional editing studio) --User:poorpete 10 May 2007

Thyroid Cancer

I added a bunch of details about his bout with thyroid cancer. It looked pretty good before, but I really wanted to stick to the exact facts as closely as possible. I was thinking about adding a quick fact about the prognosis of his type of thyroid cancer overall, but I thought it would be a bit too morbid. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chantoke (talk • contribs) 05:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC). Just provide a link to thyroid cancer, but it is not neccessary to talk specifically about his type of thyroid cancer in this article. This article is about Roger Ebert (and how he is dealing with cancer) and not about his cancer in general. That stuff belongs in the article about thyroid cancer. Azn Clayjar 18:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

vincent gallo

i think that it should be added how ebert hated the brown bunny and vincent got really mad at him. i noticed that it is already discussed on the brown bunny page and vincets page. im only asking since it seems odd that its not on here already. 71.147.40.110 08:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC) I disagree. The war of words with Gallo wasn't really an important aspect on Ebert's career. The reason it was mentioned on Vincent Gallo and the Brown Bunny is that the controversy helped Gallo's career and made the Brown Bunny known beyond the Cannes festival. But overall, it is just a footnote in Ebert's long career as a movie critic and not worth mentioning here. Azn Clayjar 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's worthy of mention. Gallo went on The Howard Stern Show to claim credit for Ebert getting cancer after Gallo put a "curse" on him to that effect, and Ebert devotes considerable space to the flap in his most recent book. Nightscream 02:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Gallo's claiming credit for causing Ebert's cancer is silly and thus irrevelant to the Ebert article. But if Ebert does mention about Gallo in his book, maybe there might be some mention then. Not too much. Azn Clayjar 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Who's Fuckig with the Trivia?

I would like to know why people are changing the trivia? Those facts that I added are true and interesting! What the hell.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.8.171 (talk • contribs) 15:51, August 28, 2007

• They might well be true and interesting, but you would be well advised to read Wikipedia's policy on trivia in article, which is entitled: "Avoid trivia sections." If it's notable enough, the trivia item will be incorporated into the article, otherwise it'll get pulled out as non-encyclopedic. Tabercil 22:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know who's doing this, then you might want to read your Talk Page, since we have already attempted to speak to you about that matter there. As it is, misspelled unsigned, anonymous profane exclamations aren't exactly the best way to show that you're willing to collaborate with others here. Let's try to keep it civil, okay? Nightscream 04:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Some shaky facts

There's nothing in Ebert's review of I Spit on Your Grave that says he considers it the worst movie ever made. And even if he did write that, the review is 27 years old and he might've seen a worse one by now. Secondly, the thing about him wanting Phillip Seymour Hoffman to play the movie version of him is taken out of context. He actually said, "Brad Pi...excuse me, Philip Seymour Hoffman." But the thing about Hoffman is probably a reference to the fact that Hoffman is indeed playing him in the upcoming Russ Meyer bioepic. The whole section on his personal tastes is, IMO, unnecessary since it's his job to give his personal opinions on films. I've removed it, but perhaps someone can figure out a way to incorporate the facts into the main article. --YellowTapedR 05:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call, Yellow. However, I think the parts about his favorite film, actor or actress are acceptable to include in that section. Since he's possibly the most famous movie critic in the country, it stands to reason that readers may be interested in who his favorite performers and movies are, which is apart from merely his job to give personal opinions on films. Perhaps those three things can be incorporated into the "Style of Critique" section? Nightscream 17:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I put the stuff about his favorites in the style of critique, but couldn't figure out how to incorporate the stuff about his least favorites (the critique section already does mention North, so no need to repeat it). He and Gene Siskel were known to campaign against certain films back in the 80s, so maybe the stuff about I Spit on Your Grave can be incorporated into something like that. --YellowTapedR 18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC) He said I Spit on Your Grave was the worst movie he's seen in his TV review of the movie "Enough." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.11.170 (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Video Games?

Ebert's not-infrequent criticism of video games as an "art form" is pretty well-publicized and I was wondering if anyone felt it should be mentioned here? I would make the edit myself but I hardly feel qualified and have spent plenty of time badmouthing his stance on the matter that I would probably be incapable of keeping it NPOV.Lelapinmechant 04:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

He's mentioned it, IIRC, in one review (his review of Doom), and again in an edition of his Answer Man feature. I don't think it merits inclusion. Nightscream 05:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it does. His opinion is notorious around the Internet, especially in the gaming press, and at least one fairly well-known figure (Clive Barker) has directly responded to it. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If he's said something a whole two times in his entire writing career, it sounds like undue emphasis to make a big deal about it. The videogamer community (not synonymous with "the gaming press") may be conducting a "war" that nobody else knows or cares about. --Orange Mike 16:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether something is "notorious around the Internet" (something that should be sourced), "especially in the gaming press" doesn't sound like a criterion for noteworthiness. Ebert has been criticized for lots of things, perceived or otherwise. After he criticized Tyler Perry's Diary of a Mad Black Woman, people excoriated him via email by opining that Ebert was ignorant of films by black filmmakers. These people were apparently ignorant of all the films of Spike Lee, John Singleton, and other filmmakers of every ethnicity and nationality imaginable that Ebert had reviewed, both positively and otherwise. It's just not that big a deal to merit inclusion. Similarly, the video game thing is minor, and Clive Barker's response was as incoherent as those of Perry's apologists. Nightscream 16:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Videogames are a entertainment media format, and Ebert's past comments had enraged many gamers and even more so the people who work on such projects. The fact remains that Ebert's view touched a sore spot in gamers. Also, it should be noted that some movie directors who worked on videogame to movie projects, as well as other had also found his comments insulting. The comments had also been featured in various magazine articles, especially on gaming magazines such as EGM. Although it may or many not merit a needed entry, it has effected some in the movie industry and may actually be valid to his bio. VGuyver 03:57, 13 October 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.110.25 (talk)

If the comments are confined mostly to the gaming industry, and not in the mainstream press, then it hardly warrants inclusion. If there are prominent movie directors who have responded to his comments, and they can be sourced, then perhaps it might warrant a mention, IMHO. Nightscream 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

we make a big deal over his comments about frame rates. Why not make a small mention of this? YVNP (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

1. All one-two sentences must be either expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
2. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must summarize every major point/heading covered in the main body of the article. Currently, for example, there is little, if anything, on his personal life and battle with thyroid cancer, despite it being a major section of the article. It must also not contain any information that is not present in the body of the article. Most of the paragraph that begins with"Ebert's movie reviews are syndicated to more than 200 newspapers in the United States and abroad," violates this.
3. The article needs far more citations. Some of the major examples include, but are not necessarily limited to:

   "In his senior year he was co-editor of his high school newspaper, The Echo." (Early life)

   "Ebert did his graduate study in English at the University of Cape Town under a Rotary International Fellowship. He was a doctoral candidate in English at the University of Chicago when the film critic's position was offered to him by the Sun-Times." (Early life)

   Some of the stuff under "Career" is inherent, but a lot more requires citations.

   Most of "Other career highlights"

   The quote in the opening sentence of "Style of critique and personal tastes"

   "Ebert has reprinted his starred reviews in movie guides. During his appearances on Howard Stern's radio show, he was frequently challenged to defend his ratings. Ebert stood by his opinions with one notable exception: when Stern pointed out that he'd given The Godfather Part II a three-star rating, but had given The Godfather Part III three and a half stars." (Style of critique and personal tastes)

   "Ebert also shows a marked distaste for films that feature violence in support of authority. For movies that feature religion, he has been known to comment on them using his own Roman Catholic faith and his own interpretation of Christianity. He often includes personal anecdotes in his reviews when he considers them relevant. He has occasionally written reviews in the forms of stories, poems, songs, scripts, or imagined conversations. He has written many essays and articles exploring the field of film criticism in depth." (Style of critique and personal tastes)

   "In his review of The Exorcist, Ebert said it was "stupefying" that the film received a rating of "R" from the MPAA instead of an "X" (suitable only for adults)." (Views on the film industry)

   The first paragraph of "Personal life"

   "He is also good friends with film historian and critic Leonard Maltin, and considers the book Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide to be the standard of film guide books." (Personal life)

   The first and fourth paragraphs of "Battle with thyroid cancer"

4. The "Other career highlights" and "Other appearances" sections are far too underdeveloped to merit their own Level 3 heading at this point. They should be either expanded or merged into career.

Most critically, the prose is very choppy and, what's more, requires a significant copyedit. Certain sections, such as "Early life" and "Battle with thyroid cancer" are borderline proseline, but the article as whole jumps from idea to idea, paragraph to paragraph, with very little proper flow. This, also taking into account the fact that many sections and facts are missing citations, means that I am going to fail the article rather than put it on hold. I feel that this article would benefit from a careful reworking of the prose to make it flow better, rather than a quick fix that a hold is intended for. Cheers, CP 06:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Maxivision?

I recall his preferring it to digital a number of years ago. Has he been won over by digital? I thought perhaps he had been. 72.231.188.91 (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No. He still thinks Maxivision 48, (in which the film projector runs at 48 frames per second, twice a fast at the usual 24fps), looks "4 times better than the normal image seen at the typical movie theater". He still prefers Maxivision 48 to digital. Upgrading to Maxivision 48 would cost less than upgrading to digital. I have not heard anyone say that the digital image looks a lot better than the usual film image.204.80.61.110 (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Alcholism

There are multiple sources that support the fact that Ebert was in AA for the last several decades, many people saying it saved his life. Curious that it's not even discussed here. 24.24.244.132 (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you post links to these multiple sources? Then everyone can judge whether or not to add a section to the article. 151.191.175.233 (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The alcoholism discussion is nothing new. Ebert has acknowledged that he was a inveterate boozer who ultimately sobered up. His distinctive voice and his penetrating, thoughtful and, above all, generous point-of-view are sorely missed since he disappeared from the airwaves.Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Creationism

This page is being repeatedly altered by anonymous users 128.223.251.73 and 128.223.251.81 (possibly the same person), who is claiming Ebert is a creationist and moreover that Ebert states this on his blog at http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080921/COMMENTARY/809219997/-1/RSS.

It does *not* say anywhere on the previous link that Ebert is a creationist. Secondly, that article is either satire or vandalism, but whichever, it is blatantly not Ebert's views. Check http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080508/ANSWERMAN/805080311/1023 for his reasons for not reviewing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, for example.

He is clearly not a creationist and there is widespread referenceable support for Ebert's acceptance of evolution, and agnosticism much of which is already referenced on this very page. I'm going to revert the unsubstantiated additions again and would request that editors keep an eye on this page. BaldySlaphead (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering how reliable that link is - from my looks it's a joke, and several previous sources have indicated he believes otherwise. Not saying it's definitely false, but I'd keep an eye on his site for the next few days. (forgot to log in before, oops) Malendras (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional; a further link to http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/critic_is_a_fourletter_word.html#comment-501517 shows that while Ebert is apparently the author, he does not believe what he has written. "Ebert: What in the article leads you to think I believe in Creationism?" BaldySlaphead (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I think I started a firestorm. I figured it would stay unless we found out it was a hack. I apologize - should have waited until it was verified by another source, since it is such an odd reversal.Johnelwayrules (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What, exactly, WOULD lead you to accept that Roger Ebert is a Creationist? Does he need to come to your house and tell you so to your face? I mean, if he posts something like the above-mentioned on his web site, what could possibly be the purpose other than the expression of his beliefs? Do you really run your life this way, making up reasons for people's actions without a shred a proof? You say "He is clearly not a creationist [sic]," and then offer to proof of that whatsoever. On the other hand, the rest of us have documentation from his web page (upon which he does NOT offer any evidence that it's satire as you suggest) as proof that he IS a Creationist. Sorry Baldy, but I can revert as often as you can...and I'm going do to so now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.206.143 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would believe that Ebert is a creationist if he posted something on his website, or some other verified source, along the lines of "I am a Creationist" or "I believe that [insert blatantly Creationist belief here]." If he is one, I am sure he would be fully aware that it would be quite surprising to many people, and I think if he sincerely wanted those people to know that yes, he is a Creationist, he would be so clear about it. The comments he made at http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/critic_is_a_fourletter_word.html#comment-501517 are definitely not that clear.

Even under the assumption that the page in question is sincere, what it actually says is that Creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution (which does not mean that evolution is fundamentally wrong or worthless; if he said he believed it was, that would also be acceptable evidence for me that he is a Creationist) and then it lists answers that Creationist websites have given to questions about their beliefs, but he does not explicitly say on either that page or the commentary page that he personally believes those answers. To assume that he is a Creationist based on that list is, I think, to assume that only people who actively believe in Creationism could have any interest in learning about it or discussing it. Which I don't believe is true. Propaniac (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pay attention, everyone. Roger Ebert acknowledged the obvious yesterday, admitting that the article was a farce. http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/this_is_the_dawning_of_the_age.html VillageGreen1215 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been in communication with Roger Ebert regarding this and, as VillageGreen states above, he has verified that it was satirical. It's a bit Borat-ish of him to offer up such a bizarre article and act like everyone should have known better, but I'll give him his moment in the sun. I've added a summary of the article hooplah, as well as an explanation of Ebert's stated purpose based on his latest article "This is the dawning of the age of credulity." Hopefully you'll all read the entire thing before you go reverting and/or deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.206.143 (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought that went into this section of the article, but I wonder if it is necessary to include this section at all? In the scope of his career, and of this article, it seems like a minor incident, and not really worth mentioning. It seems as though he has made other statements that have drawn more response than this. (His review of Diary of a Mad Black Woman, for example.) He has written blog posts and reviews that have gotten plenty of feedback; I don't think that this specific instance deserves special mention if the others don't. Totallybananas (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Totallybananas. This was an extremely minor event in his 40-year long career and I don't think it warrants its own section in the article. VillageGreen1215 (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Also, can we please keep all the posts together in chronological order in one section, instead of creating redundant sections and subsections that scatter the continuity of them? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ebert doesn't seem to think it's so "minor." It may not be as significant as where he was born, or his job at the Chicago Sun Times, but it's more than just a blip on the radar. In his own words, reaction to his first (more ambiguous) article was tremendous. The Creationism vs. Evolution debate is huge, and threatens to set back science by centuries; it's obvious that Ebert appreciates that fact and wanted to inject himself into the debate in some manner. He did the same with his refusal to review Ben Stein's piece of garbage documentary "Expelled." It may fade in importance later, but for now, I think it's important to keep this in the article. Wikipedia is the first place many people look for a better understanding of who celebrities are, what they believe, etc. And if people are concluding that Ebert is a Creationist based on that article (and many thousands seem to have come to that conclusion), I think it's important to leave the explanation as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.215.35 (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been a regular reader of Ebert's website for several years now, and this "incident" is hardly one of the most significant occurrences in his career. He has said things on TV and in print that have generated an equally tremendous response. Why mention this specifically? People have been reading and commenting on Ebert’s work for years before this one article was written; this is not noteworthy. Consider the scope of the rest of the Wikipedia entry. It’s absurd to say that this event carries the same weight as any of the other events in his career, and calling it a controversy is ridiculous. If it related to his opinions on film, then it would make sense to integrate it into the rest of the article. But it does not. You mention leaving it in for now, but what would be the appropriate time to eventually remove it? Any minor response has long since passed; It has already faded in importance. When compared to the rest of his career, this has no real relevance.

The wikipedia entry only summarizes what Ebert said on his website. The article wasn't even intended to be Ebert weighing in with his opinion about the issue of Creationism or Evolution; it was about the notion of satire and irony. Totallybananas (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well put.MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Reads like a story"

The article was tagged {{Story}} by Lodabolobo on November 3. This tag expands to: "The current version of this article or section is written in an informal style and with a personally invested tone. It reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry. To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and conform with our NPOV policy, this article or section may require cleanup. Please see specific examples noted on the talk page. Editing help is available."

Lodabolobo did not add any commentary with specific examples to the talk page. While the article is certainly not of excellent quality, for the reasons discussed in the good-article review above, I do not agree that it "reads like a story". I'm removing the tag, and if someone wants to re-add it, let them say why. (A {{cleanup}} tag was added at the same time, and that one I'm leaving in place.) --70.48.230.220 (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ben Stein

I think Ben Stein's challenge to Ebert to write a review of Stein's anti-evolution "documentary" eXpelled and Ebert's brilliant response is worth its own section in this great article. Since it appears that there are a number of you who have been lovingly maintaining this article, I hesitate to create and add the section myself. Perhaps somebody closer to the work that has been done here already would take the lead? http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html --AStanhope (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that link, Stan. However, since a BLP article is supposed to be a summary of the most salient aspects/events of a person's life, I think it would be difficult to find a place to put a mention of this in the article that would be contextually relevant. As someone who has been extensively involved in the editing of both the Roger Ebert and Expelled articles, I think this may be a better fit for the Expelled article. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Religion

How the heck can you be a Roman Catholic and an athiest? Pardon my ignorance (as I'm neither Catholic nor athiest). UndeniablyJordan 20:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"I was raised Catholic, so of course I'm now an atheist." - Bob Odenkirk. - MrBook 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Jordan, one cannot possibly be both atheist and Catholic. The Odenkirk quote is a joke, meaning to say that he found the beliefs and practices of Catholicism so off-putting and ridiculous that he ended up rejecting the idea of God and religion completely. It's actually a variation of a Woody Allen joke about being raised Jewish. (And no, before you ask, you can't be both an atheist and a practicing Jew at the same time, either.) -- Minaker

It's a little different with Jews, because "Jew" is used as an ethnic term as well as a religious term, so therefore it is possible to be a Jewish atheist, as Woody Allen would freely admit to being. "Catholic," on the other hand, is almost always used as a strictly religious term, and therefore "Catholic atheist" is usually thought to be an oxymoron. In my experience, people who were raised Catholic but no longer believe or practice refer to themselves as ex-Catholics. But nonreligious Jews generally still call themselves Jews, and are regarded as such not just by Jewish tradition itself, but by society as a whole. marbeh raglaim 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The current article makes no mention of Roger's religious upbringing or current beliefs. Anyone have any citable info? - Mcasey666 11:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC) I don't think religion is a big part of who he is as a public figure, so it makes sense that it doesn't appear in the article. But he seems to indicate in his review for Passion of the Christ that he is an ex-Catholic. However, I've never seen him identify as an atheist, and he often comes off as somewhat spiritual in outlook--or at the very least respectful of religious beliefs. marbeh raglaim 20:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC) I saw him say in his own words that he considers himself an Agnostic. He said it on ABC in an interview where he was talking about the Passion of the Christ controversy. However, for the life of me, I can't remember what show he was on.-unsigned, December 18, 2006 11:21 PM

Really now...? Doesn't the article say he's a "devouted Roman Catholic" right now? I dunno, but most of the "Atheist/Agnostic" talks from him seem a bit satirical. Anyways, I dont' think it really matters, it's just something that should be pointed out. IronCrow 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agnostic makes sense. But bear in mind that "agnostic" is a very broad term. I've even on occasion heard religious people identify by the term, to suggest that their views on God are a matter of faith rather than knowledge. That might not be what's usually meant by "agnostic," but it is used that way by some people. marbeh raglaim 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the word 'However' in 'However, he now identifies as agnostic' should go as it implies he is no longer Catholic. You can be both catholic/religious and agnostic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism or refer to one of the world's preeminent philosophers Anthony Kenny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.91 (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What's with Ebert and the Wikipedia fetish?

I 've got to ask this as a longtime user here. What's with quoting this guy or linking to his page in every film entry in wikipedia? And almost 100% of the time this is done without saying "critic ebert said blah blah", just ebert said so and so about the film, as if people around the globe should know who the bleep some u.s. critic is... Does this guy have some sort of cult following scoring high on the uglyness/nerd scale or what? How did he all of a sudden come to dominate wikipedia? 91.132.224.196 (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely with you about this. Even if Roger Ebert is regarded as America's best KNOWN film critic that doesn't mean that he is the BEST film critic. I've seen far more insightful reviews on Amazon than by most paid critics. Just talking about him gives him more note than he deserves. His views on videogames are completely wrong (he clearly hasn't played many or any in any depth). He is just one of 6 billion critics in the world of varying skills. I am a critic, you are a critic, everyone's a critic.

---

Ebert is undoubtedly and inarguably America's best-known living film critic. Many Americans, if asked to name a film critic, would be able to name Ebert and no other. If Ebert gives a film a positive review, it is virtually certain that the review will be quoted in the promotions for that film. It is therefore natural for American Wikipedia editors, of which there are many, to include his opinion when describing a film's critical reception. The point of Wikipedia is not to draw attention to especially insightful Amazon reviewers. Propaniac (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What's with quoting this guy or linking to his page in every film entry in wikipedia? Can you provide examples? Nightscream (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Even so, he is very often the ONLY critic mentioned by name. I guess this is some kind of Americanism which I don't understand (being a Brit) Tomgreeny (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

he is recognized as a leading film critic, including the ranking by Forbes Magazine as the number one influential pundit in the United States, a list dominated by political talking heads. Considering the United States' history and current status in film, I would say the premier American film critic is by definition an important international film critic, if not the (or a) leading international film critic Tamer (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing Herzog Letter Reference

The reference to the heartfelt letter Ebert wrote to Werner Herzog is missing. I read the letter and so touched. Since I've never edited on Wiki, I can't add the link. If someone else can that would be great. Thanks http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071117/PEOPLE/71117002 July 11 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.40.71 (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ebert1.JPG

Image:Ebert1.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture of ebert seems to be a little outdated... 65.96.131.219 (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Mac

I think this article needs some coverage of Jimmy Macs rant including the words..."Star Wars is forever, Roger, and you can suck it!" Sorcerer123 (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is Jimmy Mac, and where did this rant take place? Nightscream (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Mac is a well known radio umm guy lol and he is also the cohost of the force-cast. and this rant was through e-mailSorcerer123 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Then what sources establish it? Nightscream (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

this http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090216/LETTERS/902179997Sorcerer123 (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be salient enough to warrant mention in the article, IMO. Nightscream (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, it is important to him because it went back and forth plus' if you even mention it on rebert's talk page he will delete it.BTW im on Jimmy's side!Sorcerer123 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I never even heard of it before I found out about it here - I don't think it meets the notability requirement at all. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is important to him or they went back and forth has no bearing on whether it is salient enough to include in a biographical article on him. A Wikipedia bio article is supposed to summarize the most salient things for which the subjet is known. It is not a place to list every single exchange or disagreement that he/she has had with someone. As for your accusation that Ebert will delete material from this page, what evidence do you have of this? Nightscream (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

no, on his talk page of his account User:rebert i tried to talk about it and it was quickly deleted!Sorcerer123 (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, when you first mentioned Ebert deleting information, I mistakenly thought you were referring to acts by him on his site that generated news stories that could be utilized as sources. I now understand that you're talking about a Talk Page here on Wikipedia. What a user does with their Talk Page on Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for anything, because it does not constitute noteworthy or publicized event reported in a secondary reliable source. Remember, Wikipedia articles and pages cannot be used as its sources.

Second, your original point in mentioning that post of yours (in your July 15 in this section) was to offer it as evidence that his exchanges with Jimmy Mac were salient or noteworthy enough to mention. But this is specious, as the two have obviously nothing to do with one another. Deleting your post from that talk page goes to the point that his exchanges with Jimmy Mac are noteworthy enough to mention in his article? How do you figure this?

Third, you stated that Ebert deleted your post. In fact, the Edit History clearly indicates that the user Infrogmation deleted it, and not Ebert. And course it was deleted. Your post, in which you stated, "Jimmy Mac is COMEPLETELY correct and I, too, take your remark personally offensive. How dare you!", clearly violated not only WP:Civility and WP:Attack, but the restriction that Talk Pages are to be used solely for the purpose of improving articles, which Infrogmation corrected cited as the rationale for removing it.

Unless you can provide reliable, verifiable sources that establish the Jimmy Mac matter to be noteworthy enough for inclusion (and violating various Wikipedia policies by harassing people on Talk Pages doesn't accomplish this), it's not going in the article. If you're serious about editing here, I suggest checking out the Welcome Page and the Five Pillars to learn more about Wikipedia and its policies. Good luck. :-) Nightscream (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell cares about Jimmy Mac? 99.99% of the world has never heard of him. It's not appropriate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.189.193 (talk • contribs) 10 January 2010

Family

The article starts out by saying his family has German origins. Any relation to Friedrich Ebert, perhaps? --79.193.123.33 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that indicates he is? Nightscream (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Current health status

The section about his health seems to end in April 2008. It's almost October 2009 as I write this; perhaps that section should be updated? —BMRR (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Updates would be predicated on any further developments in his condition, and sources that support them. Do you have any? Nightscream (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No; I was just wondering if anybody else had seen anything in the news and perhaps hadn't gotten around to adding it to the article. It's not uncommon for Wikipedia articles to be quite outdated, even when up-to-date sources are available. If I see anything, I'll add it. —BMRR (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything except the pieces in the Sun-Times about his use of his digital box to speak. Godspeed to him. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

shouldnt there be a picture of him now since they had to remove much of his lower jaw? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.165.218 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If someone can find an image that is freely licensed, then great, but I couldn't find anything on google or Flickr.--Chaser (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not try emailing him? I'm sure he would be glad to provide a recent photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.52.87 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, wait until he reads this and maybe he'll upload one himself. He does have an account here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.52.87 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

I was surprised that this article does not have a Controversy section, considering the overall public negativity towards his reviews.Preslavk (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO if there were a controversy section we would have to include every little disagreement he had with another filmmaker, actor, critic, ect. also, can you prove this "overall public negativity?" to me, "overall public negativity" sounds like the type of backlash that is happening to Tiger Woods or Brittney Spears or Lindsay Lohan. Ashburn247 (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no "overall public negativity" towards his reviews that I am aware of it. The fact that he's been as successful and influential as he has would indicate that he has a sizable readership. Having a controversy section is fine, but only if the material is notable enough (not every little disagreement), and if it adheres to WP:NOR, WP:V, et al. Nightscream (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ebert gets no more negative public reaction than the average celebrity (probably less). As a matter of fact, I think the section about how he can clash with the majority needs to state that, according to this rotten tomatoes webpage: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/author/author-16/, he still agrees with the majority about 77% of the time, at least as much as the average critc. The only real negative reaction, as far as what can be observed on the internet, comes on the occasion when he doesn't agree with the majority. It causes the movie's biggest fanboys (or biggest haters if it's a good review) to come attacking with whatever claim they can think of, not because his is the biggest or least rational contradiction, but because, as arguably the most accomplished critic, he adds the most weight to the minority opinion.71.162.2.126 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen King Criticism

To be fair, shouldn't somebody insert that Stephen King's criticism was based on examples such as that Spiderman 2, praised by critics and fans alike as possibly the best superhero movie to date, was overrated? (Examples based entirely on his own personal opinion?) 71.162.2.126 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Material needs to be summarized, and not be bogged down with too much detail. The level of detail you refer to seems superfluous; I mean, of course it's King's personal opinion. The work produced in the very industry in which both Ebert and King are notable is predicated entirely on individual aesthetics. It's a given. Nightscream (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

But the way it's phrased now makes it sound as though King has found considerable evidence that something is wrong with Ebert, when he's really just trying to single-handedly pass judgement on a movie. It should say something like "In objection to the wide acclaim recieved by films including Spiderman 2, King responded by listing several critics, including Ebert, that he felt were no longer reliable." 71.162.2.126 (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get that from King's statements. Again, it's a given that he's just expressing his opinion. Nightscream (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

-"Formerly reliable critics who seem to have gone remarkably soft – not to say softhearted and sometimes softheaded – in their old age" is more aggressive than just a simple expression of opinion. It's pretty obvious that he intends to convince people that this is the truth. (And the fact that he starts describing examples in the given article confirms this.) It's only fair (not to mention more accurate) to identify that, in this case, he's more or less alone in that opinion. 71.162.2.126 (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

An expression of opinion can certainly be aggressive. As the "truth", well, everyone's opinion is the "truth".......to them. :-) (Btw, it's easier to differentiate your posts from those of others at a glance by indenting it differently. If the post above you is indented with three colons, for example, you should indent your with four, or just start over at the left without any.) Nightscream (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(Well, yeah, I thought the colon thing was becoming excessive.) Wikipedia is here so that readers can decide what is the "truth to them", and King's criticism affects this. A passive expression ("that's my opinion, take it or leave it") is one thing. An aggressive expression ("you should believe this because;...") demands more consideration. King's statement by itself makes it sound as though there is real weight behind his claim (or, at least, more weight than there is). That, bottom line, is misleading. 71.162.2.126 (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether an expressive opinion is "passive" or "aggressive" is subjective, as is how much consideration it demands. All expressions of opinion are by their nature, aggressive, since passivity would be denoted by silence rather than any expression at all. The bottom line is, King's statements are indeed an opinion, and self-evidently so, and any problems with how they're worded are simply a question of aesthetics. How much "weight" should be given to King's opinion is a question of personal opinion, and not something for you or I to decide. The readers are more than able to decide this themselves by simply reading that passage, and the linked sources upon which it's based. But if you'd like to present here a reworded version of that passage, I'll read it. :-) Nightscream (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But if you'd like to present here a reworded version of that passage, I'll read it ←?

Of course what King says is his opinion, but there's more to it than that, as everyone has a reason for their opinion. King's statement is aggressive in that he is asserting that it is the truth, not making some "it's just my opinion" statement, and as a respected author, people can only expect his accusation to be based on a thoughtful analysis (if not more). (But, in fact, it's based on an unpopular personal opinion.) Unless there is proof that people in general wouldn't expect this from Stephen King, there is no question that the given passage is misleading and incomplete. And Wikipedia is here to be a complete source by itself, not to direct people to other sources to be correctly informed. (Also, I think the second sentence in your last entry contradicts the first a bit.)71.162.2.126 (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

All or most people assert their opinions to be the "truth" in one way or another, regardless of whether they employ explicit qualifiers like "This is just my opinion, but..." Just because his opinion on Spider-Man 2 is unpopular does not mean that it's not an opinion, nor that it was not based on a thoughtful analysis, nor that it's less likely to be the "truth", any more than it would be more likely to be the "truth" if it were a popular opinion. "Unpopular opinion" and "thoughtful analysis" do not exist as mutually exclusive points along a Empirical-Aesthetic Spectrum, so there is nothing "misleading" about the passage. The elements you perceive in King's opinion seem derived from from your own negative reaction to them than to anything that could be objectively measured in them that's not in any other strongly-opined column. It is not our job to underline an opinion as unpopular, as if to make the reader understand that we think it is wrong.

"And Wikipedia is here to be a complete source by itself, not to direct people to other sources to be correctly informed." Sorry, but you have it reversed, as it is the opposite that is true. Nightscream (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The difference in the way he states his opinion is, obviously, is that he has a point he is willing to argue to consider. (His arguement is already hinted at in the article.) And the fact that it is an unpopular opinion makes a difference, because people are less likely to agree with it. (I think you can see the difference I described in what they'd expect without dwelling over literal definitions.) The information would affect the opinions people form, and that means the description is incomplete without it. (By the way, I suggest you forget accussing anyone of biasedness in their motivation. You haven't see me accuse you of a positive reaction to King's claim and reluctance to risk weakening it, however tempting it has been.) 71.162.2.126 (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, I want everyone who reads this to type an answer to this question: When you look up something on wikipedia, is it to read about whatever you're looking up, or is it to help find an entirely seprate webpage with information on what you're looking up? 71.162.2.126 (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Throughout this discussion you've been trying to point to things in King's piece that are somehow different from any other opinion piece, and yet every time, what you point to is indeed found in every other opinion/column/op-ed, etc. "He has a point he is willing to argue to consider"? As opposed to what? As opposed to those who do not do this when presenting their opinions?

It is not for you to determine what readers "expect", or act as the Thought Police over how people form their opinions. The simple fact is that you don't like King's opinion, and want to try and word the passage to incorporate this sentiment, using the veiled rationales that it's "incomplete" or "misleading".

"You haven't see me accuse you of a positive reaction to King's claim..." Because I haven't provided you with any evidence that this is case, thus making such an accusation difficult to illustrate. I've based my position here on proper adherence to Wikipedia policy, and not my personal reaction to King's opinion, which for the record, I do not agree with, as I thought Spidey 2 was great. By contrast, however, the same cannot be said of your position.

"When you look up something on wikipedia, is it to read about whatever you're looking up, or is it to help find an entirely seprate webpage with information on what you're looking up?" False Either/Or Fallacy. You have not established that these are mutually exclusive functions of an encyclopedia, as both are a part of such a project. Proper-written Wikipedia articles present encyclopedic information that is supported by reliable, sources that are explicitly cited in the article text, for the purpose of verification. The idea that readers necessarily read things on Wikipedia or follow the material to their sources, is false.

If you're prepared to offer a suggestion for how the passage could be reworded that would not violate WP:NPOV (which I asked you about in my previous post but to which you did not respond), then provide it. Otherwise, I think we've reached the Agree to Disagree Threshold. Nightscream (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I've stated that King's statement is different from an opinion someone has formed but is not willing to go into detail on (in response to your statement that "he's just expressing his opinion", as though there's nothing more to it than one statement). If wikipedia is going to state that King has an arguement against Ebert, it should state just what that arguement is so that readers can best form their opinion on it. If it doesn't state what his arguement is, what is there to assume other than he hasn't given it or perhaps that most people wouldn't question it at first glance? Neither is true, so deliberatly withholding it is indeed misleading.

"Because I haven't provided you with any evidence that this is case, thus making such an accusation difficult to illustrate."-On the contrary, you've dwelled on literal definitions and interpretations, avoided answering the question of whether identifying King's arguement affects the opinions people form, and altogether beat around the bush, as though hoping to either complicate the arguement until I cannot get my point across or draw it out until it dies off. But I haven't so much as suggested any of this until now, so I request that you stop accusing me of biasedness through what I can only assume is an attempt to read into my writing.

"You have not established that these are mutually exclusive functions of an encyclopedia, as both are a part of such a project."-You wrote before that the opposite of my claim on wikipedia is true. The opposite of my claim would be that wikipedia is not here to give you a complete and accurate summary of the subject, it's here to list other sources in which you can learn about the subject. If this means you have misunderstood, then I will clarify: Wikipedia is here to give you a complete and accurate summary of the subject, not an incomplete summary that another listed source can complete. Other sources are to be included to both prove and offer further, more detailed reading on the subject. (King's opinion and what he is arguing are the basic information. The specific details are his logic behind the arguement.)

Now, if by the prior post, you mean your statement "But if you'd like to present here a reworded version of that passage, I'll read it", that finally clarifies what you meant. (I was confused, as I thought you were talking about the original source from which King's statement came.) Not only have I already taken a stab at this, but I've just finished arguing why the page isn't fair and balanced without identifying King's entire arguement. The way to state it would be something like "In August of 2004, Stephen King included Ebert in a list of critics with 'four star fever' in response to what he saw as a recent trend of leniency towards films, namely Sam Raimi's Spiderman 2". (Or substitute the "soft in their old age" quote for "four star fever.) You don't need to state his logic behind that statement (as though presenting it as good or bad), but you do need to give readers the idea of what he is arguing.71.162.2.126 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

First (since it seems this discussion is going on for a bit), editors who intend to edit (or post) for more than just one-off edits, are expected to sign in for an account with a username. It's free, takes seconds, and you can still remain anonymous. It also makes it easier for others to address you or refer to you by a name. :-)

That King's statement is different is your opinion, and he indeed went into it in detail, as he wrote an entire column on the matter. If you mean his offhand comment about Spidey 2, he isn't required to go into it any further than he feels he needs to, since it's his column. And as I've stated before, readers are more than able to form an opinion on it by reading the passage as it is, and reading King's column. You have no way to determine how they form their opinions, as you do not speak for them, and I have stated this before, so your assertion that I've "avoided" answering it is untrue. In any event, nothing in this accusation even has anything to do with your observation that you hadn't accused me of a positive reaction to King's claim. (Again, I disagree with King, as I liked Spidey 2, and think it deserved the four star ratings it got, so the positive reaction to King's claim that you hypothesize simply doesn't exist.)

As for your statement: "You wrote before that the opposite of my claim on wikipedia is true. The opposite of my claim would be that wikipedia is not here to give you a complete and accurate summary of the subject, it's here to list other sources in which you can learn about the subject."

Wrong. You know full well which portion of your remarks I was responded to, and are now pretending that you don't. I provided the quote by you that I was responding to, which was not about Wikipedia giving a complete and accurate summary of the subject, but was this quote here:

"And Wikipedia is here to be a complete source by itself, not to direct people to other sources to be correctly informed."

It's right there above, after all, and indeed, I was correct in informing you that the reverse is true, because Wikipedia is not a source of original information, as I linked that statement of mine to the No Original Research policy page, which says just that. Wikipedia is a not a primary source of information, but a reference source that refers readers to the sources from which its information is derived, and requires sources to be explicitly cited for its material. That's why it's called a "reference" source. As a general practice, referring people to other sources (or "directing" them as you put it), is precisely what a reference source does. If you disagree with this, when why not say why? Do you dispute the WP:NOR policy? If so, why didn't you say so? Why instead focus on a distorted reading of my response, by matching it with a portion of your statements that I wasn't directing it to?

Again, if you want to add a mention of Spidey 2 to it, by all means, let's try it. I just copyedited the passage in question. Nightscream (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, while I do enjoy getting involved in this kind of thing, I have my own ideas about which (and how many) websites I should join. But that's another issue.

King's statement is different from the type I mentioned before (in which someone makes a statement but does not give their logic on it) because, in the latter case, you cannot judge the person's logic for better or for worse. They probably have a reason that they could form into an arguement if they spent the time, but they haven't done so, so how weighty you consider that claim is based entirely on how much you resepect/tend to agree with that person's ideas. But King does give a reason for his statement, so one can now decide whether this particular idea seems right to them. And what he says about Spiderman 2 is not just an offhand comment as, apart from being the only example that he gives, he spends a full paragraph evaluating it and another two tying it into his overall point. The issue is not determining how people think, but what the passage allows them to reasonably think. If you simply say that a respected author (King) thinks Ebert is too lenient, they can only form their opinion based on how much they trust the author's judment, insight, ect. (However they will probably wonder just what King has observed. And the same section goes on to tell about how Ebert can clash with the majority here and there, so it would be reasonable to assume that it has something to do with that. Why would anyone assume King is referring to a movie like Spiderman 2?) But King gives an arguement behind his opinion, so readers can judge that and decide exactly what they think. And it is reasonable to assume that knowing the arguement will affect opinions, because finding King's judgement generally accurate is (along with more common) not the same as finding Spiderman 2 overrated.

"I provided the quote by you that I was responding to, which was not about Wikipedia giving a complete and accurate summary of the subject, but was this quote here: "And Wikipedia is here to be a complete source by itself, not to direct people to other sources to be correctly informed."" That quote IS about Wikipedia being a complete and accurate summary by itself. It was in direct response to your statement "The readers are more than able to decide this themselves by simply reading that passage, and the linked sources upon which it's based." My point was that wikipedia is not here just to redirect people to another source that accurately informs them. What is written on the wikipedia page by itself should be enough by to form a general opinion, therefor "a complete source". I'm sorry if just writing "a complete source" (as opposed to "complete and accurate") was too general for you to see what I meant. (Although, I'm not sure why you'd think I'd make it a question of original research, which I never intended to do.)

Now, I never thought you were biased against Spiderman 2, I thought you might be biased against Ebert. But since we are both currently content with what is now written (though I don't see why it has been moved to the top of the paragraph, ahead of the opening information, or why it now states that King is one of several) I suppose that is no longer an issue. However, I believe you meant to write "what he saw as a growing trend", not "what he a growing trend".71.162.2.126 (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

King's opinion is different from others in your opinion. One's reaction to a film is a question of personal aesthetics and taste, and while one may elaborate on it in a review, King's piece wasn't a review of Spidey 2, but a piece on a different topic which contained only a tangential reference to that film. In any event, Wikipedia's readers do not need you to determine whether they are capable of forming an opinion or not, nor does it "just" redirect people to another source. It reasonably summarizes information in conjunction with citing sources as a matter of policy. The link to King's column is there, so they can gauge the information as they please. People know whether they liked that film or not, and are more than able to judge whether the article's passing mention of King's remark is sufficient for them, or whether they're curious enough to follow it to the source. Since this article is about Ebert, and not King or Spidey 2, it cannot include every single irrelevant detail just to satisfy your personal standards of completeness, which are subjective anyway.

The passage was moved because in its prior location, I felt it didn't flow as contiguously with the context of the section. Since the section starts off with an explanation of his star ratings, and continues with mention of him being challenged on his ratings on The Howard Stern Show, moving the bit about King's challenging his ratings seemed to fit.

I'm a fan of Ebert's, as I enjoy reading his reviews every week. So your persistent speculations about my biases continue to exhibit all the accuracy of a scud missile. Nightscream (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it doesn't need to be a review of the film for him to evaluate at all on the movie. Spiderman 2 is what the second half of the whole article (the half in which he makes his arguement) is based around. He spends one paragraph evaluating it, the next comparing another Sam Raimi film to it, and the final one summarizing just how good he considers it. That's not a throwaway tangential comment.

I didn't say King's opinion was different from any other opinion, I said that what he states is different (more) than an unsupported opinion. And I also said that it's not about determining how other people think or what they are capable of, but whether you give them all the general details to take into account. (Many people do not come on wikipedia planning to go to another source afterwords just to get the idea, nor should they have to.) And I spent a whole paragraph evaluating why this is the truth, not just some arrogant personal opinion, so if you're going to refuse to consider, or even directly mention, that evaluation, I think we are at the point where we will not see eye to eye.

Now I can understand the need for the passage to flow better, but since it has nothing to do with explaining Ebert's star ratings, wouldn't it be better in front of (or after) the part about him being challenged by Stern? (Just a thought.)

And since the idea of biasedness curving the logic is not currently relevant, I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and not question your honesty.71.162.2.126 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)