Talk:The Bike Ride

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dorset Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dorset, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics connected with Dorset. If you would like to participate, you can visit the WikiProject Dorset project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.DorsetWikipedia:WikiProject DorsetTemplate:WikiProject DorsetDorset articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reception

"Hovis and the BFI restored the advert for use in 2019 in an attempt to unite a divided nation. It was criticised for reminding those who voted to remain in the Brexit referendum of how little they had in common with those who voted to leave."

WTF is this unjournalistic tripe?

I watched the relaunch video. No mention of any sort of motive behind Hovis' restoration, just Ridley and the rest of his team remarking on how it was to shoot the original film and the feeling of being re-united with it many years later.

I watched the longer 7 minute video from the BFI, wondering if maybe Cakelot1 was referring to a quote made here. Nothing. Again, just a video talking about the BFI launching its archive and a slightly more in-depth look into how the advert was restored, frame by frame, from three separate master reels.

One of the two sources cited was a paper written 2 and a half years after the relaunch had come and gone. The other was a charged article where the author loaded his preconceived biases into the title and does not derive from any comments made within Hovis, nor from any personality connected with the company, past or present. If a car advert talked about its power and looks and some random journalist decided to frame their agenda around the advert's refusal to acknowledge the car's environmental impact, that does not make the voiceover artist nor the car company responsible for the advert climate change deniers. That is the same level of mental gymnastics required.

I'm pretty sure a company deciding to remaster a 45 year old advert would have been on Hovis' agenda for a long time given its status in British televisual culture as well as the overall history of advertising and had precisely zero to do with Brexit. Whether or not it happened after the article author's first major political loss on a personal level is utterly irrelevant. 194.207.183.182 (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to those two sources and presenting there views (per WP:NPOV). Sources don't become unreliable from being written too long after the fact, nor because they are paywalled, nor because individual editors disagree that they didn't do enough interviews with Hovis. I personally think it is a bit Remoaner-y myself, but articles are based on sources not our own opinions so they you go.

Looking back at the campaignlive article, however, I'm now not 100% if its not an opinion piece, in which case, to be on the safe side I think it would be best to attribute the opinion to Michael Beverland. If you have any recommendations for rewriting the section based on those reliable sources in a way that better reflects there content or other reliable sources that present other views on the remaster (as I could find precious little about it when writing this article) please feel free to present here. Many Thanks. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply to the original comment. Personally, I don't see how this reference to Brexit has any relevance whatsoever to the article. I found the article today while reading about Ridley Scott. When I arrived at the commentary about Hovis' intentions, I was surprised and distracted from the article's topic. I recommend removal of the reference altogether because it's not a matter of "fact" or "journalism" versus opinion and reliable sources; rather the erstwhile political commentary distracts the reader from the overall factual basis of the article about a beloved television ad created by one of the most renowned directors of all time. TAC Aurora (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TAC Aurora, it is clearly marked as an opinion of an academic and is in a reception section (i.e. opinions of cultural critics), so I think it's quite clear that it's not a "fact" or "journalism". We include all the opinions presented in WP:RS, in proportion to those views in those sources. That's the key part of the WP:NPOV policy. 2/13 is pretty high not to include it, imo.

Basically the way to change the situation is to find more reliable sources that present more opinions, preferably more accademic journals which, on Wikipedia are generally preferred over news sources. I have access to a bunch of journals though The Wikipedia Library, so feel free to reach out if you've found an academic piece that you've found with a promising title/Abstract, and I'll let you know what it says. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're continuing the aforementioned "mental gymnastics."

I prefer plain English: opinions have no place in a factual article.

I get it that you're mentioning--and referencing Wikipedia's policy on--reliable sources, but you're trying to buttress an argument not around a fact-as-presented in the article, but a viewpoint, an opinion, a political trope. I stand on my recommendation to remove the section referencing an opinion, because opinion is NOT fact. Respectfully, of course. TAC Aurora (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained to you Wikipedia policy in this area (WP:NPOV is a very important and universally enforced policy), and we can't dispense with policy just because you don't like its results. Making arguments about what we believe is true isn't helpful here either, as this site is based solely on what reliable sources say and not our own feelings. Verifiability, not truth may be recommended reading here.

I'm baffled by your assertion that article's can't include opinions (when clearly marked as such and coming from WP:RSs). We regularly include them, particularly for cultural objects, and in fact doing so is specifically recommended (e.g. MOS:FILMCRITICS, MOS:NOVELS#Reception, etc.). This is such a standard feature that I genuinely don't know how you don't know about it.

Bottom line, for this conversation to result you need to genuinely engage in the policy problems with your proposals, that I pointed out and not just dismiss them because you don't like it. And accusing other editors of "mental gymnastics." and thus failing to Assume good faith, probably won't get you far either. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 00:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"mental gymnastics required" I agree. The discussion veers towards "opinion" and away from fact. I recommend removing this reference to a political trope from this otherwise efficient Wikipedia article. TAC Aurora (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]