Talk:Unplanned/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reverted Edits...

@Onel5969: OK, just why do you keep reverting my edits without any proper explanation? Do you really think there's something wrong with any of them, or are you just spamming me?--Neateditor123 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123

You've been given explanations in the edit summary. The term in this article is the term used in the vast majority of the sources. Changing a term used in the sourcing to one you prefer might be construed as POV editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Trailer/Marketing section

@Neateditor123: You asked me to explain my restoration of my previous edits: I added my edits pertaining to the Unplanned trailer back in because I thought that whoever reverted them had an issue with how many sources I cited and/or the Trailer subsection being in the Production section. I attempted to fix both possible problems in my last edits. It just seemed to me that if Tolkien (film) can have a legitimate section dedicated to its trailer, this film article could add well, especially if it has interesting and/or informative information relating to the Unplanned film. Do you think any of these to be legitimate reasons?

Thanks for your edit summary informing me of why you reverted my edit. EomereofRohan (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@J.S. Clingman: While I do understand your argument and appreciate it being explained here, the thing is, as Erik already said, that information is not acceptable per WP:FILMMARKETING. Additionally, just because the page for Tolkien (film) has information like that (which I have now removed) isn't an excuse to put similar info on other Wikipedia pages.--Neateditor123 (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123

@Neateditor123: Well thanks for the explanation. It makes sense to me now why my edits were reverted. I'll keep that in mind as I edit other film articles. Dia a bheith leat! (God be with you!) EomereofRohan (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a 1RR restriction on this article

Which so far as I can see should have been on here from the start, might have solved some problems. I need to sort out some technicalities as it appears the community sanction is now part of the ArbCom sanction, but in any case, it exists and I've added an edit notice to the main page that you will see when editing. Doug Weller talk 12:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing the line about Johnson witnessing an abortion

In these two edits, 2601:8c3:4100:303c:e039:75c4:f26c:beb1 (talk · contribs) edited the paragraph

One day she is asked to assist in an ultrasound-guided abortion at thirteen weeks gestation. Johnson witnesses a fetus struggling for its life as it is dismembered by an abortionist's tool. She resigns, becoming an anti-abortion activist, and founds a ministry to assist former Planned Parenthood employees turned anti-abortion after their own experiences.

to remove the bolded portion, replacing it with Personally offended, she resigns, then She instead resigns. The problem with both (especially the second) is that they make it sound as if, in the movie, she resigned rather than assisting. It doesn't matter whether you believe that the real-life Johnson actually assisted in an abortion: the point of the plot section is to explain what happens in the film; and this is a major plot point in the film, according to the trailer and reviews.

Here's one from LifeSiteNews:

As depicted in “Unplanned,” Johnson would later assist an ultrasound-guided abortion of a 13-week-old preborn baby. Witnessing the horror of the abortion was a watershed moment in her life.

Aleteia:

Johnson, a volunteer who rose through the ranks to be director of a Planned Parenthood facility in Texas, quit her successful career after witnessing an ultrasound of an unborn baby struggling to escape an abortionist’s suction tool.

Newsmax:

After working at an abortion clinic for eight years and winning an “Employee of the Year” award, Abby had the enormously disturbing yet incredibly enlightening experience of having to assist with an ultrasound-guided abortion. What she witnessed was absolutely horrendous: a tiny baby inside the womb, who was in the struggle of his or her life, having to suffer through the gruesomeness of dismemberment.

I can understand why someone would object to the wording of the removed sentence, and I'd be happy to discuss changing it; but I think that bowdlerizing the plot summary is absolutely the wrong way to go. Cheers, gnu57 10:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

References

In light of the ip violating the 1RR rule, I've requested that the article be page protected. I agree that removing a vital plot point is incorrect.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

'The factual basis of the memoir has been questioned...'

While rebuttals often provide a useful and informative difference in perspective, this particular line seems both low in content and unnecessarily contentious. The citation from an opinion piece at Slate is not new information and does not add to the article. True, it challenges Ms. Johnson's claim that her higher-ups made abortion-related financial requests, but given that the private verbal business communications involved would be onerously difficult to prove or disprove either way, it doesn't add anything to the article.

The challenge that Ms. Johnson could not have witnessed an African American patient on the particular day she claims seems especially frivolous.

I am a new user here and don't want to edit articles right out of the gate, but I think this is worth looking into.

Prudecru (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking into this more, I would like to request the two challenges in the article and also the claim that these challenges are based on Planned Parenthood clinic record data be removed or edited. Otherwise it can wait until I am autoconfirmed.

First, we should note that the claims in this paragraph are cited in footnotes 12, 13, and 14. However, the article in footnote 12, the Slate article titled "The Abortion That Never Happened," is simply repeating / reporting on the existence of the article in 14, a Texas Monthly article by writer Nate Blakeslee, so the Slate article appears to be a redundant citation.

The article in 13 appears to be a blog post on ReWire (at least, the author calls it a post) and it repeats Blakeslee's claim that she appeared on the talk show in favor of abortion. Given it uses language like "It seems Ms. Johnson’s conversion wasn’t so sudden, huh? I’d love to know how these events went down," per WP:RS this appears not to be a good source. Also, I'm not sure it specifically supports the claims made in the paragraph.

The Texas Monthly article is, then, the primary challenge the article cites. In it, Mr. Blakeslee argues that Texas health department records (not PP records) show only one African American woman had an abortion that month, who he concludes could not have been Abby Johnson's patient. However, looking at the Texas Department of State Health Services Induced Abortion Report Form, the portion on race must be completed by the patient. It is plausible that the patient may have self-identified their race differently than Ms. Johnson may recall in her momentary meeting. Further, reading the IARF instructions, it does not appear that individual patients are listed in state records at all, but rather that a tabulation is made of all abortions performed by month. I don't wish to debate the line of argument he uses itself, but simply wish to show this does not appear to be a serious scholarly challenge; Mr. Blakeslee's article seems somewhat antagonistic in general. At this point we may be in danger of forming circular citations from contentious media. We should either sum up the fact that Ms. Johnson's story is challenged at all without getting into details, or use a more impartial secondary source. Prudecru (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

All good points, @Prudecru:. But I'm not certain that another impartial source we can use exists, to be honest. Abortion is a rather controversial issue, and it is extremely difficult to find a neutral voice on the subject, even among journalists. As to whether the paragraph belongs in the article, I was thinking that it would probably be best to at least give it its own section, as it doesn't seem to belong in the "Production" section.

But I'd be curious to see what other editors think of what you've said here, as you seem to have made a good argument. —J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I checked out WP:RS, especially the section on "Scholarship". The 6th point caught my eye, and is quoted to say: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." This point seems to describe the sources you cite, @Prudecru:, as I don't think the Texas Monthly article received any peer review. On the other hand, however, the article may or may not be considered "scholarship"; I don't think WP:RS gives a definition.—J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Plot summary...

@Abecedare: As I said in my edit summary, "She witnesses a fetus struggling for its life even as it's sucked into an abortionist's vacuum and killed" is not subjective "propaganda" as some users have said, but an accurate and objective description of what happens in the film. Therefore, it should be included with the plot summary and not censored to "She finds the procedure she witnesses to be gruesome".--Neateditor123 (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123

I don't think that to be a neutral or encyclopedic description especially the use of the loaded term 'abortionist' and describing the 'fetus struggling' in wikipedia's voice instead of attributing it to Johnson's interpretation, or the filmmaker's depiction. See also the section above dealing with the same issue.

More broadly, since the film has now been released, it would be good to develop the current Premise section into one covering the whole plot. However, given the likely POV concern it would be best to propose and discuss the language here on the talkpage before adding it to the article. Abecedare (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: If the term "fetus struggling for its life" is too controversial or (to some people) subjective to include in the article, fine. At the very least, I think "She witnesses a fetus being sucked into a vacuum used for the abortion and killed" is uncontroversially accurate enough to be used to describe that particular scene.Neateditor123 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123

I frankly prefer the current version for reasons described in the edit-summary. But will let others weigh in. Abecedare (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm pretty satisfied with the current wording (After witnessing the procedure, which she finds to be gruesome)—I think it's an evenhanded way of summarizing the premise. If you're considering changing it, though, how about After witnessing the death of the fetus, which she finds to be gruesome and disturbing? Cheers, gnu57 16:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I still think my suggested version is slightly better, but I guess the one suggested by gnu57 is acceptable enough. Hopefully, using that will put an end to any remaining arguments surrounding this particular topic.--Neateditor123 (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123

I've added a plot summary for the whole movie. I've tried my best to descibe it in neutral terms, describing the sequence of events as presented in the film and Abby's reactions to them. Others are free to improve it. -Thunderforge (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

To clarify that an actual abortion is not shown in the movie, in the section on production, insert: According to Abby Johnson, the brief abortion scene shown in the movie is: "a CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery) recreation of what I saw on the ultrasound screen when I assisted in the abortion procedure that convinced me of the humanity of the unborn. ... It is important for you to know that this was a CGI recreation and NOT footage from a real abortion." http://thecatholicspirit.com/news/nation-and-world/an-open-letter-from-abby-johnson-regarding-unplanned-r-rating/ Lincolninpeoria (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NiciVampireHeart 21:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Early Release Location Specification

Because this is a film motivated by Christian/Catholic beliefs (in large part), I think it's important to add that the early screening of the film in Indiana took place at the University of Notre Dame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Union1298 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2019

Please change: 'The factual basis of the memoir has been questioned,[12] specifically her statements that "higher-up at Planned Parenthood encouraged her to increase abortions for financial reasons".[13] Johnson also stated that the patient in question was a black woman. However, based on reporting by Texas Monthly, which relied on Planned Parenthood clinic records,[14] only one patient from September 26, 2009 was black, and she was in the sixth week (not the 13th week) of her pregnancy.'

To: 'The factual basis of her narrative has been questioned, specifically by investigative journalist Nate Blakeslee of Texas Monthly in a piece titled The Convert[14].'

Please see my comment above at 17:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC) for clarification and justification. Prudecru (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NiciVampireHeart 21:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Cited POV/Conjecture

@Onel5969 and Kappacheeno813: This is about this edit removing information about numbers of moviegoers and reviews with the comment "even though cited, it's still pov conjecture". I think I agree with Kappacheeno813 and would like to restore that information, specifically because it is cited. The reviews are definitely POV, that is what reviews are, that is the point of reviews. The conjecture is conjecture from Deadline Hollywood, a 13 year old reliable source specializing in the entertainment industry, which is valuable. --GRuban (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@GRuban: The first half of the sentence However, despite an impressive opening for a small-budget Christian film, the number of actual movie-goers may have been much lower than the number of tickets sold, as it was reported churches across the country had bought out entire screenings for the picture. is pure OR: there's nothing in the cited article about the number of actual moviegoers being lower than tickets sold. (It does say that churches bought out showings, but nothing about whether or not they actually sent people to fill the seats.) Cheers, gnu57 21:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Good point, that should be rephrased to more closely reflect the source. --GRuban (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, GRuban - I didn't look at the entire edit, and didn't realize that there were also reviews, I only saw the first portion of the edit which Genericusername57 addresses above. As long as the reviews are cited in a neutral tone, and are balanced by a similar number of positive reviews (since the critical reviews are pretty much split 50/50), I have no issue with re-adding them. However, since there are positive reviews out there, and this editor chose to only add 2 negative reviews, definite pov issues. Regarding the small budget commentary, Genericusername57 has already stated what my objection was. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I restored the part of the first portion backed by the source. I also restored the reviews, and looked for others. Here are a few others I intend to add over the next few days unless someone beats me to it. I think the best way to describe them is split according to ideology; however the main stream ones (Chicago Tribune, Guardian) do seem to be on the negative side, so I'm not that worried about leaving the current article looking as if the reviews were more negative than positive until the others are added.

• https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900063389/movie-review-unplanned-pureflix-a-planned-parenthood-supervisor-changes-her-mind-pro-life-abortion.html - mixed
• https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/unplanned-review-nobody-ever-said-abortion-was-pretty/ and https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/abortion-debate-unplanned-movie-will-change-minds/ - positive
• https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/27/unplanned-courageous-abortion-film-weve-waiting/ - positive
• https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/mar/28/unplanned-review-anti-abortion-propaganda-is-a-gory-mess - negative
• https://www.detroitnews.com/story/entertainment/2019/03/28/review-pro-life-drama-unplanned-rallies-base/3297365002/ - negative --GRuban (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to quibble, but the sentence Multiple reviews describe the film as "preaching to the choir." seems a bit iffy to me as well: I would have no objection to including a summary of each of those reviews, but I think that we shouldn't combine them to suggest critical consensus without "meta-review" sources like Rotten Tomatoes. Cheers, gnu57 17:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

They do actually all say that, but I do agree that's not a fair summary of their reviews. I'll remove until we have time to summarize each review, but, honestly, once we do, I suspect we may want to put that back, since a phrase shared among multiple unconnected reviews is something that we probably do want to at least mention. Even most of the other reviews I list containi that basic thought even if they don't use that exact phrasing. --GRuban (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

GRuban - I didn't see your list earlier, but I added the Deseret review. When I went looking, the issue I had with the reviews is that many of the ones I looked at weren't really reviews of the films, but commentaries about the film's subject. I think that any further reviews should be about the film. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2019

I reviewed this film for Catholic World Report and would like to add a quotation in the Reception section from my review. You can see the review here: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/04/02/beyond-abortion-polemics-unplanned-gets-personal/

Thank you for your important service in providing a universal encyclopedia Professor1951 (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion Breawycker (talk to me!) 18:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Canada

Although the article now mentions a single screening in Canada, this (https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/gabriel-hays/2019/05/22/canadian-cinemas-effectively-ban-film-unplanned-over-pro-life) source claims that the film is 'effectively banned' in that country. 37.99.48.133 (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Anti-abortion or pro-life?

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

---

Should this film be described as anti-abortion or pro-life? An IP editor keep changing it to say "pro-life". The corresponding wiki page is called "anti-abortion". -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed on Wikipedia many times. One relevant example is Talk:Abby Johnson (activist)/Archive 1#Anti-abortion vs. pro-life, where I and other editors have said that this is euphemistic and ambiguous. As an encyclopedia, we should strive to use clear, neutral language whenever possible. "Pro-life" is neither. The issue is not life in a general sense, but abortion, specifically induced abortion. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I think Grayfell's right. "Pro-life", though popular and generally accepted to be pretty objective, is a pretty loaded term; and as such, it shouldn't really be used here (just like any specific details of the abortion were changed to "Abby finds the process [of it] gruesome and disturbing" for the same reasons; something 1#Plot_summary... I have actually argued about in the past).Neateditor123 (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123

Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are subjective terms, used by their prospective proponents. The objective terms would be "pro-abortion", or this case, "anti-abortion". I'm the editor who first worked on the page, and I carefully used anti-abortion in order not to express a point of view (see here). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, to reiterate, anti-abortion should be used in describing the activity. That being said, another editor has added the term to describe the author of the memoir, which imho is adding POV to the article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Onel5969: I was only adding the label to make it distinct to the other Abby Johnsons in the dab page; I was not trying to push POVs or nothing. As far as the "pro-life" label is concerned, it should be dropped in favor of "anti-abortion" which is much more neutral and less BS, much like I would prefer "abortion rights activist" than "pro-choice" (at least within the confines of this site). NatGertler and I are actually in agreement with this. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, "pro-abortion" is problematic as well, because most folks who support the availability of abortion would rather see folks who don't want to get pregnant just not get pregnant in the first place, so it's more "pro-legal-availability-of-abortion". We tend to cast it as supporting "abortion rights" on Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

There are varying degrees of opinion on both sides of the issue, such as when abortion is appropriate or should be legal. So, neither "anti-abortion" or "pro-life" is really accurate, since even "pro-life" people generally (but not all) agree that abortion in certain situations is OK. The easiest way would be to compromise and use "anti-abortion/pro-life". AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Using both terms is not a compromise it is a kludge and results in very poorly written prose. There isn't going to be any satisfactory agreement on this but the least worst option is to respectfully use what each group calls itself, which is "pro-life" and "pro-choice". It is not perfect but it is what objective journalistic sources do. -- 109.76.223.71 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

No, we do not go with the spin, we go with clarity. AP Style Guide says anti-abortion, as does The Guardian. It's what objective journalists do. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You think the Guardian is objective, that's cute. -- 109.76.223.71 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

At least it's what journalists who try to be objective do. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Projection

For some reason, people keep deleting even the request for who made the "projection" as to what the film would earn. A projection is a prediction, and if there's any value to be placed in it, it's based on who made that projection. Whose model was being used? Having said that, I'm not sure there's even much point in having that projection in there. Such projections become rather useless once there are actual figures on hand; after that, it's just commentary on how accurate the projection was. It doesn't actually tell us anything more about the movie. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Usual problem

We seem to have the usual problem of propaganda films: it's being represented as if it were a documentary. We have multiple sources that identify it as anti-abortion propaganda (which is what it is), and numerous sources to the effect that the events as portrayed, never happened. It is not a documentary based on a memoir, it's a propaganda film (the dirrector admits it) based on a polemic. As Variety points out, it's good propaganda, effective propaganda (at least if you're sitting in the choir) but propaganda nonetheless.

As a start I have added a section under Plot outlining the fact that the events as portrayed appear to be a fabrication, and noting comments from medical professionals critiquing the splatter-movie portrayal of abortion. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

My sources:

Unplanned is a 2019 American anti-abortion propaganda film written and directed by Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman, based on the disputed memoir Unplanned by Abby Johnson. The film stars Ashley Bratcher, Brooks Ryan and Robia Scott, supposedly following Johnson's life as a clinic director for Planned Parenthood and her subsequent conversion to anti-abortion activism, though perpetuating "distortions and potentially dangerous myths" about abortion.

Competing version:

Unplanned is a 2019 American biographical drama film written and directed by Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman, based on the memoir Unplanned by Abby Johnson. The film stars Ashley Bratcher, Brooks Ryan and Robia Scott, and follows Johnson's life as a clinic director for Planned Parenthood and her subsequent conversion to anti-abortion activism.

There are no sources cited. My version has multiple sources. It's quite possible that neutrality lies somewhere betweent he two, but it certainly does not lie in the unsourced verison that fails to mention the well-attested fact that this film is anti-abortion propaganda.

Several other sourced changes are also being challenged, e.g. the fcat that its presentation of abortion is misleading, cited to articles by, e.g., an OB-GYN directly commenting on the film (this is absolutely routine for a pretended documentary that turns out to be inaccurate). Also a rejection of the Texas Trib's investigaiton that found no evidence that this procedure happened on this day, and other sources noting that the subject of the movie was under disciplinary measures and at no point mentioned their supposed epiphany. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Agree Looks good to me. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Question are administrators exempt from complying with the 1RR rule which this page is under? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I suppose the issue here is, do these sources meet WP:RS? So we will have to hash that out here. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a bit of a struggle in that reviews are inherently by their nature opinion pieces, making it difficult to address their labels as facts rather than opinions. But if all the reviews said a film was a comedy, then we would be comfortable placing that descriptor on it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO the Huff Post article is usable for this article. It would not be called an "opinion piece" since it uses an expert quoting facts. When HuffPo uses a guest editor they are not OK, but in this instance the author is a "senior editor". Gandydancer (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I do think that "propaganda" can sometimes be used as a neutral descriptor (e.g., "WWII propaganda posters"), but in these reviews it's clearly being used as a value-laden label. Even if, say, all critics agreed the film was "hackneyed", it wouldn't be appropriate to put the label in Wikipedia's voice (and there isn't a clear-cut critical consensus for "propaganda" in this case). gnu57 21:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Response The sources for "propaganda" are opinion pieces which use the term as a value-laden label: as such, it should be attributed (..."several reviewers described the film as..."), rather than used in Wikipedia's voice. Same with "distortions and potentially dangerous myths".
  • JzG added the "propaganda" descriptor to the lead earlier this week; since then, he's reverted 1, 2, 3, 4 times to keep it in the article, including twice today.
  • No links to the Texas Tribune appear in this article, and Johnson isn't mentioned on their website: you may be thinking of the 2010 Texas Monthly article (Planned Parenthood says their records don't include the abortion Johnson says she saw), which contradicts another 2010 debunking by the Texas Observer (Johnson's coworker Kaminczak says Johnson told her about the abortion immediately afterwards in positive terms). Obviously these aren't reviews of the 2019 film.
  • Forbes contributors have no editorial oversight. The author of the Forbes review, Luke Y Thompson, is a freelance journalist and blogger. Given the many more-prominent reviewers who have weighed in on the film, I see no reason to give particular weight to his assessment.
  • I have nothing against using the HuffPo interview appropriately with attribution, but the accuracy of portrayal paragraph is currently full of unattributed POV statements and synthesis. (The struck statements are not supported by the cited sources, the underlined portions are synthesis):

  • Texas Monthly attempted to corroborate the film's narrative. It found that Johnson's resignation letter, tendered at a time when her job performance was under question, did not mention any crisis of conscience.

    The porrayal of the first abortion is highly unreralistic, and there are doubts as to whether this procedure ever took place at all: no ultrasound guided abortions took place in Johnson's clinic on the claimed date. The movie highlights complications of abortion, but these are rare - abortion is 14 times safer in the US than giving birth. Planned Parenthood is falsely portrayed as primarily a for-profit abortion business. There is no one agreed measure but the proportion of Planned Parenthood's activities that are abortion related is probably between 12% and 37%, but may be as low as 7% of all treatment events. Abortion procedures are portrayed as long, painful and bloody, but in reality, most abortions last 3-10 minutes and are "well tolerated". Practitioners are portrayed as callous and inhumane. This is disputed. The claim of 75% drop-out from abortions when clincs are picketed is also disputed.

    Cheers, gnu57 21:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't be using articles that were commenting on the book as reference for the movie. Saying that criticisms of the book are criticisms of the movie is WP:OR. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

But we have sources commenting directly on the movie that say its portrayal of abortion is inaccurate, and that's what is being disputed here. There's even one paper that went and got an OB-GYN to watch and comment on the film. That's fact-checking. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

References

• So let's start at the top. All film criticism is opinion, so if you're going to use "it's opinion" to wave away all criticism then you're inventing a new rule for Wikipedia that would need wider discussion. Globe and Mail, New Statesman, Guardian, National Post, Toronto Sun and dozens of others. The question then falls back on how to cover the fact that it is propaganda. I am certainly happy to discuss how we represent that.

Accuracy of portrayal, siure, let's tighten it. The basic facts as established by sources are: (a) Johnson resigned while under disciplinary measures and there's no independent evidence that she cited her new-found religious convictions at the time, and some evidence that she did not. This is covered in more than one of the sources; (b) journalists who tried to verify her story found that no such procedure took place on that date; (c) the movie's portrayal of abortion does not remotely resemble what actually goes on, as again attested by multiple sources. The Guardian calls it a "gory mess". I think I erroneously wrote Tribune not MOnthly. The Texas Monthly story ([2]) says The rollout of Abby Johnson as a culture-war celebrity got off to a rocky start. In early November, the online magazine Salon reported that on September 27, the day after Johnson says she witnessed the ultrasound-guided abortion and had her epiphany, she appeared as a guest on the Bryan public radio program Fair and Feminist to discuss her work at the clinic. In the hour-long interview, Johnson gives an enthusiastic defense of the clinic and ridicules the 40 Days for Life protest. She doesn’t sound like someone who’d had a life-changing experience the previous day or who had soured on her employer’s mission , and Johnson’s departure from Planned Parenthood turned out to be a more complex story than it first appeared. At a court hearing for an injunction sought by Planned Parenthood to prevent Johnson from divulging confidential information to her new allies, two of Johnson’s former co-workers testified that she told them in the days before she resigned that she was afraid she was about to be fired. The movie has her presented Planned Parenthood Employee of the Month, but in fact it was only for the regional affiliate. on October 2, Johnson was summoned to Houston to meet with her supervisors to discuss problems with her job performance (Salon repeated after checking by Texas Monthly). She claims she was disciplined because she was not upselling abortion. PP say Citing company policy regarding confidential personnel information, Planned Parenthood declined to specify why Johnson was disciplined, other than to deny that it was due to any conflict over the number of abortions performed.. Who to believe? Johnson's credibility is less than that of Planned Parenthood here: on resigning {tpq| She never mentioned being pressured to increase abortions, having witnessed the ultrasound-guided procedure, or having suffered a moral crisis}}.

What almost certainly happened is that anti-abortion activists seized on a vulnerable woman who was resentful of Planned Parenthood. I have no objection to presenting both sides, but the fact-checker should get at least parity with the narrative from anti-abortionists, because, let's face it, they do have a bit of history here. And I am not particularly inclined to believe that Planed Parenthood is suffering massively due to the recession, as most of the damage done to Planned Parenthood is due tot he deliberate actions of religious zealots in legislatures in the Bible Belt. Fighting unconstitutional restrictions on abortion has cost them a lot of money.

It's undeniably effective propaganda, at least for the target audience. But to claim it as anything other than an anti-abortion propaganda film is to grossly fail WP:NPOV. It would be stunning if any movie about abortion made by a fundamentalist Christian movie house would be anything else, after all.

I presume that the CDC's finding ont he relative safety of abortion and childbirth is not being dismissed as an "unattributed POV statement". I don't have a problem with attribution for statements of opinion, that one is obviously a simple fact. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Good overview Guy - thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

A good overview and analysis, and would probably make the basis for a good article... somewhere else. But sourcing an article that is currently about a film to material that is clearly not about the film goes against our standards, including WP:OR. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding the radio interview that Johnson conducted on September 27, 2009, she discusses this in her memoir. Johnson did not quit Planned Parenthood and turn 180 degrees to being pro-life immediately after witnessing the ultrasound-guided abortion; she struggled with what she had seen for a week, weighing her desire not to be part of any further abortions against the good that she felt she had accomplished treating her patients and the disdain she still felt for the anti-abortion movement. It wasn't until the following Monday, October 5, that she finally left her job for good after realizing that the clinic was still handing out medication to perform RU-486 abortions.

In the meantime, as she describes:

I was determined to find a new job within two weeks and be out of Planned Parenthood before we performed surgical abortions again.

But I only had a few hours to devote to my hunt. Months before I'd committed to a KEOS radio interview with the host of the program Fair and Feminist. It was a program very sympathetic to Planned Parenthood, and I'd been a guest on the show before. We'd planned this one knowing that the 40 Days for Life campaign would be in full swing -- the perfect opportunity to attract new supporters to the pro-choice cause.

"Doug, you know I've got that radio interview tonight."

"Oh, I'd forgotten all about it. What are you going to do?"

"Well, I don't see I've got much of a choice. I'm committed. But I don't have to talk about my personal feelings on abortion. I can just stick to the talking points, like I always do. I'm still representing Planned Parenthood. I'll follow my usual script and get it over with."

That is just what I did. The program's host was a friend, a volunteer at the clinic even. She and I had shared our dislike for the Coalition For Life's views, and frankly, I still disliked them. It was the oddest sensation to do the interview that night. On the one hand, it was surprisingly simple to slip into the role of media spokesperson and use the well-rehearsed words I'd said a thousand times. But on the other hand, this time I felt that I was acting a role rather than speaking from my heart. It wasn't a feeling I liked, not one bit. I came away from the interview feeling a bit sick to my stomach.

- Unplanned, chapter 12

Johnson also responded in this editorial in The Federalist to the Texas Monthly article claiming that there was no ultrasound-guided abortion performed on a 13-week patient on September 26, 2009. She says that:

• The document provided to Texas Monthly purportedly containing that day's abortion records came from Planned Parenthood (not exactly an unbiased source), not from the Texas Department of Health, which does not release reports about individual abortions in order to protect patient privacy.
• The document was some sort of manually-compiled spreadsheet, not the actual Induced Abortion Reporting form required by the state of Texas for any abortion appointment.
• The document has discrepancies suggesting that the information on it may have been falsified, such as leaving out required information (anesthesia type, complications) and stating that a surgical abortion was performed on a 4-week fetus when the minimum for this procedure is 5-6 weeks.
• If it wasn't falsified, it would have to have been generated by Johnson herself, since it was dated September 30 (at which time she was still working at and in charge of the clinic). So she would have known better than to invent a fictitious abortion for the sake of inventing a conversion story.

Richferrara (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I love the fact that she hides behind HIPAA to defend violating HIPAA...

However, for Wikipedia's purposes only one thing matters. Texas Monthly is a reliable independent source, and Johnson isn't. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean like it or not, the film is just a biopic drama about a topic that happens to be hot button. If something with a clear bias like Fahrenheit 11/9 or Death of a Nation don’t get labeled propaganda, why would this? TropicAces (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference betweeen POV and proaganda. Michael Moore's films are often agit-prop, but Roger And Me and Bowling For Columbine are proper documentaries, as is Fahrenheit 11/9 according tot he critics (it gets a high rating, the commentaries note that the Hitler rhetoric is a bit overblown, but don't criticise factual accuracy). D'Souza's work is fiction really, like Ann Coulter's books. Again, the critics make this clear. It's been eviscerated by real historians, too. This movie, though, is naked propaganda, made and distributed by anti-abortionists for the express purpose of scaring girls out of having abortions. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The editing of the page and Content "Accuracy of Portrayal"

It says that the film is "factually inaccurate" Planned Parenthood is "falsely portrayed". Unplanned was based on the book of a woman's testimony. We shouldn't say what really happened if we weren't there. It also says that the first abortion scene was unrealistic when it isn't. There's a documentary called The Silent Scream that shows an abortion recorded from an ultrasound. The documentary was narrated by a medical doctor, Bernard Nathanson. Former abortionist and professional OBGYN, Dr. Anthony Levantino, who had a cameo in the film, said that abortion can be dangerous and many other problems to it. Dr. Haywood Robinson and his wife, Dr. Noreen Robinson, are former abortionists and discuss what's bad about it. I know that I am a man, and people say that men shouldn't have a say in this topic, so I assumed that it is only up to a woman to have a say. However, this film is largely based on a woman's experiences, and she's being portrayed as a liar? That doesn't make sense. To be honest, this editing of the page is just politically biased and it is ridiculous and hateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thartley1018 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

These statements are based on reliable independent sources. Do you have any reliable independent sources that contradict them? For example, any gynaecologists who say the film's portrayal of abortion is accurate, to offset the numerous professionals who say the opposite? Guy (Help!) 23:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: I found this article, written by a retired OB/GYN, which says the film was accurate. aboideau^talk 19:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

In the Washington Examiner? Was it also published in any reliable sources? Not that it's a surprise to find two apostate abortionists turned evangelical christians agreeing on an anti-abortion propaganda film. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Unsure. I just saw that it was written by a gynaecologist and thought I'd ping you. Still a bit new here, sorry. aboideau^talk 19:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure. And if there are such commentaries in reliable sources, we can say that there are differnces on whether it's accurate or nto. this says not, as do mostmainstream sites that target a female audience, as far as I can see. Not a surprise: abortion is extremely popular among American women, so they are going to be interested in something specifically designed to threaten access to abortion. There's a vast moutain of data showing that suppressing abortion kills women. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia constantly says what happened without the article authors having been there. Do you think Julius Caesar was written by Romans 2000 years ago? Curiosity wrote its own article? That woman says something, the film repeats these claims, and the references show it is factually wrong in many aspects. Is your argument really "a woman said that, therefore it must be true"? --mfb (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

References

The WaPo opinion piece is not a valid source for this article.

The WaPo article cites a statistic (that abortion makes up only 3% of PP services) that was debunked with 4 pinocchios. As a newspaper, the WaPo is a heavily left-biased publication. The presence of that easily verifiable falsehood calls into question the validity of the entire piece. The citations of that article are also heavily editorialized and that one opinion piece is cited repeatedly throughout the current version of this article and treated as authoritative. That citation should not be used and the editorialization that is occurring in this article should be removed. 137.241.250.130 (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the Pinocchio-givers found the 3% figure accurate, but misleading, which is why they gave it not 4 but 3 Pinocchios. "When all services are counted equally, abortion procedures do account for 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s total services."

And when you're complaining about the WaPo as a source, realize that when you point to Pinocchios, you are pointing to the issuer of Pinocchios: the Washington Post. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe the poster above was referring to the HuffPo piece, which does present the 3.4% figure in a misleading way. gnu57 22:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I included a full analysis with error bars, so the inclusion of the figure within sources being cited for other facts is irrelevant really. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence of the lead section, per WP:FILMLEAD, needs to mention "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". Here, "drama" is the genre (as edited by TropicAces), and this does not mean nothing can follow calling it a drama film. The current version shows it being called "anti-abortion film", which is not in itself a particular genre. Per WP:LEAD, considering that it is primarily notable for the anti-abortion theme, it should still be mentioned in the opening sentence. (E.g., "drama film produced by proponents of the anti-abortion movement".) By comparison, the directors and the underlying memoir do not even need to be mentioned in the first sentence, but rather the second and/or third. As for the "propaganda" description that has been used in the opening sentence, it has not been used as a genre label. It does not mean it cannot be mentioned in the lead section at all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

(I don’t want to get too deep into this page and its edits because of how hot-button it is and how easily some people are set off, but) I still don’t see how “anti-abortion” is a genre of film, you know? I’m not saying it can’t be noted in the lead or plastered throughout the article, the film is inherently, unabashedly an anti-abortion film, but just don’t think it’s a genre of film in line with comedy, war, thriller, etc. At the end of the day, intentions and controversy aside, it is still only a movie, if that all makes sense. Not about to revert or try and make my case here, though haha. TropicAces (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

It's an anti-abortion film. That's it's purpose. Applying our manual of style to obscure what it is doesn't make sense. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no obscuring happening here. I clearly said that it should be in the first sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions

Reviewing this article, I have several suggestions:

• "Accuracy of portrayal" subsection is awkwardly shoehorned in under "Plot"; suggest a standalone section (like what has been done with "Historical accuracy" or "Scientific accuracy" per MOS:FILM) and perhaps have subsections of "Biographical" (for covering memoir details) and "Medical" (for covering medical procedure details)
• In the "Critical response" section, professional film critics and Catholic outlets are mixed together. I suggest a subsection focusing only on professional film critics (essentially, people who review films for a living -- the ones shown on Metacritic's page) and another focused on religious and/or conservative outlets that don't normally review films
• Have a "Marketing" section to house content from the "Release" section to capture more in general the marketing strategy and efforts. I found this that would be useful to include
• In the "MPAA rating" section, it's unnecessary to template-amplify the two quotes as significant; just include them as part of regular prose
• Have a "Social and political commentary" section that pulls from mainly non-review commentary about this film's presence in today's environment. The Harper's Bazaar article compares it to The Silent Scream, for example.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This makes sense, except that I would avoid any critical reception other than from professional critics - every anti-abortion zealot will give it five stars regardless of how shitty it is, so those are not worth beans. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

POV text in reviews

Folloing on the section above, in among the mainly negative professional reviews we have:

Audiences polled by [[CinemaScore]] gave the film a rare "A+" grade, and those at [[PostTrak]] gave it an overall positive score of 80% and a 65% "definite recommend".<ref name="opening" /><ref name="THR2" />

This movie is, as is clearly identified, anti-abortion propaganda watched almost entirely by anti-abortionists. As such, it would be astounding if they did not love it. So to say it got "a rare A+ grade" (text not in the sources, in fact) is WP:UNDUE and POV: of course the target audience loved it, it would be the same if you asked neo-Nazis to review Triumph des Willens. The difference being that Triumph is considered a masterpiece of propaganda by independent reviewers, whereas this is considered clumsy. Guy (help!) 09:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

AGREE. This film IS propaganda and IS comparable to Triumph of The Will, except in quality. Please make your counterarguments here if you disagree! -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm starting to change my mind here, after reading what CinemaScore and PostTrak are actually for. Judging the reaction of the audience that just saw the film is literally what they are for. They are often used to judge a film's box office potential. In this case the film's relative success, making back over three times its tiny budget, may be directly related to its CinemaScore and PostTrak results. It pleases the target audience. I think the CinemaScore and PostTrak scores should be in the article with a brief explanation of their significance. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether Wikipedia editors think the film is great, is awful, or is propaganda should have absolutely nothing to do with this article. Guy and Doctorx0079, please leave your POVs at the door when editing this page. You don't get to define something as "propaganda" just because you disagree with it and then declare any mention of viewers' responses to the film to be undue on that basis.

Guy, any factual basis in reliable sources for your argument that the film was watched "almost entirely by anti-abortionists"? Even if that's true, why would viewers' reactions to the film not be relevant to this article? It appears you are correct that the quotation about the A+ grade is not accurate and should be edited and paraphrased. Also, the dispute sentence isn't relevant to the section. I will be editing a section heading to fix that problem. But otherwise, the material belongs in the article. SunCrow (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It is propaganda. That's an objective fact. Everyone who goes to see it agrees with the POV of the filmmakers and doesn't care about the film's quality. Groups bought out whole showings just to support the film's POV. Implying that this is indicative of the quality or entertainment value of the film is misleading. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It is proper to include CinemaScore and PostTrak per MOS:FILM#Audience response. The reliable source The Hollywood Reporter reported on it here. If a clarifying note needs to be added, this can be referenced, "The CinemaScore letter grade is a useful piece of information, but it’s important to know its limitations. Keep in mind that the respondents are self-selecting, meaning that everyone who fills out a CinemaScore ballot has already chosen to spend the time and money on attending a film in the theater on its opening night, and to stay for the length of the film’s runtime... Such an audience is likely to be biased toward the film before they show up in the theater — unlike, for instance, critics, who see a wide variety of films whether or not they would choose to see it in their free time." This happens everywhere, though. Superhero movies get attended by superhero fans. Like the aforementioned source says, "What that means for a movie’s CinemaScore grade is that the expectations these viewers bring into the theater likely exert some effect on the grade: The audience member will be very happy if the film meets their expectations, or, if it doesn’t, potentially very disappointed." A final note: the content does not belong in "Critical reception" because that is about response from critics. It belongs in "Box office" because these are polls directly connected to who showed up on opening weekend. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Doctorx0079, "Everyone who goes to see it agrees with the POV of the filmmakers...?" Really? Not one single person who saw the film was undecided about abortion, or got invited by someone else who was pro-life, or was pro-choice but wanted to hear the other side of the story? No one at all? And no one who saw the film "cares about the film's quality?" Where does that idea come from? Are you listening to yourself right now? These are your assumptions. The encyclopedia is not about your assumptions or mine. Unless you have reliable sources to corroborate these assumptions, they have no bearing whatsoever on the encyclopedia. This is absurd. We shouldn't have to be having this conversation. SunCrow (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Erik, no it's not. There's a massive disparity between the cinemascore and professional critics' ratings, and the one passing mention with zero context does not even attemtp to explain this, so it's WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 23:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is proper to include it because of the MOS and because The Hollywood Reporter is an eminently reliable source in the film industry, one that cannot be readily dismissed. I disagree with you that it should be added with zero context; that is why I provided context with another reliable source that contextualizes CinemaScore. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Practically every movie is propaganda of some sort and this one is certainly no exception. I don't think that fact invalidates the audience's reception, and frankly I doubt that everyone who attended the movie agreed with the movie's POV (most did, probably, but that's something we can't determine without a source). aboideau^talk 16:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Aboideau, what are the Marvel movies propagandising? How many of them result in girls being frightened into having rapists' babies, or states pushing legislation to close the US' largest provider of women's preventive healthcare?

This is a long-form Project veritas re-enactment. Guy (help!) 23:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I've never seen any of the Marvel movies (or Unplanned either for whatever that's worth) so I don't know offhand. I agree with you that probably none of them promote anti-abortion. aboideau^talk 15:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Aboideau, or anything else, as far as I can tell. You said "practically every movie is propaganda". That is true only of movies made by True Believers. Most movies are clearly not propaganda, and that was rather a silly point. All "based on a true story" movies are trying to persuade you of something, was that what you meant? Though to be fair most such movies are based on a true story. Guy (help!) 18:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No, that isn't what I meant. All movies have a certain viewpoint that they are pushing. This is perhaps not what most people would consider "propaganda", but it is propaganda nonetheless -- a slightly (or extremely, as the case may be) biased viewpoint intended to change the viewpoints of others; this viewpoint is generally presented far more subtly than it is in Unplanned. You are free to hold your own opinion, of course : ). aboideau^talk 19:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow, I do know some people who watched it who are not anti-abortion. They got tutted at for laughing out loud in all the wrong places. This is a propaganda film and nobody other than anti-abortionists or critics of anti-abortion activism would even want to see it. Guy (help!) 23:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Guy, do you want the encyclopedia to say that your friends "got tutted at for laughing out loud in all the wrong places" during this film? If not, why waste time telling the rest of us about it? Obviously, you hate the movie and you hate what it stands for. You have every right to your opinion (even the really bizarre part about rapists' babies, which is just "out there"). But your negative opinion is not a valid reason to remove reliably sourced content from the encyclopedia about positive audience responses. You have no real argument here, so what's the point in continuing the conversation? SunCrow (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow, no, I want the encyclopaedia to be based on reality-based context. One passing mention that does not include any context whatsoever about the reason for the audience score diverging so markedly from the critics' ratings, is UNDUE. I'm happy to include it in the context of some reliably sourced analysis of the disjoint between critics' and audience's ratings, if you can find it. As-is, it's a factoid devoid of context that inspires a "wtf?" reaction. Is this movie really "better" than Rise of Skywalker? Clearly not, in any objective sense at all, but that's what we're saying. Guy (help!) 09:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe that we should keep "Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film a rare "A+" grade, and those at PostTrak gave it an overall positive score of 80% and a 65% "definite recommend" without explaining that they may be biased. Our readers can figure this out if need be. I did change the lead a tad as I feel that a lead should not use an opinion of one MD that performs abortions in the lead. Gandydancer (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

JzG, how are we saying that Unplanned is better than Rise of Skywalker? We're saying that the audience perceived the movie to be better than Rise of Skywalker (while the critics, of course, did not) and then we leave the reader to form their own opinion. Interestingly, the section "Audience reception" for Rise of Skywalker says that children under 12 years old...gave it a full five out of five stars (on PostTrak). It doesn't say due to the commonly accepted fact that most children under 12 will like any movie that features their favorite character, children under 12 years old...gave it a full five out of five stars. Readers are left to extract that for themselves. aboideau^talk 16:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Guy, there is nothing objective about movie ratings. They are inherently subjective. Also, it's not that unusual for critics and audiences to disagree about a movie, and the encyclopedia doesn't have to explain that disagreement--especially when the "explanation" being offered lacks any basis in reliable sources. You are crying "UNDUE" just because the audience response doesn't match your POV, and you want the encyclopedia to "explain" why it doesn't. In essence, you want the encyclopedia to reflect your value judgments about this film. That is not what the encyclopedia is for. The disputed sentence should be edited for accuracy and included in the appropriate section alongside the Rotten Tomatoes information regarding audience response. SunCrow (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow, Le sigh. Professional critics' ratings say one thing, audience ratings say something utterly different, and it's a propaganda film. Without the context of why the audience ratings differ so much from the critics' ratings, including the audience rating - especially with a peacock modifier not in the source - is UNDUE. With context - such as an article commenting that it's popular with the target audience of evangelical anti-abortionists - it would be fine, but right now it looks like we're using the fifty billion flies argument. Guy (help!) 18:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Guy, your argument is based on your opinion of the film (that it's propaganda) and your unsourced assumption about its audience (that the audience consisted of people who agree with the film's perspective on abortion). That's why your argument is flawed. At this point, it appears that the consensus points toward inclusion of the sentence whether or not it's accompanied by an explanation that confirms your assumptions. The "peacock term" you mentioned (the word "rare") will be removed. SunCrow (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Doctorx0079, FWIW, I am fine with the idea of adding a brief explanation of the significance of CinemaScore and PostTrak. SunCrow (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow, so am I as long as the context is present. The audience rating is UNDUE unless we know what proportion of the audience are anti-abortion zealots. Guy (help!) 23:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow, no, the fact that it's propaganda is reliably sourced. The assumption about its audience is indeed synthesis (from the fact of it being propaganda plus the high audience rating) but this is a talk page so that's fine. What's required, per policy, is context. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, we need to explain the relevance of everything we include. In this case we have professional reviewers saying the movie is poor and the audience giving it a Trumpian double thumbs-up., That needs explanation. Professional reviewers, we can quote anyway, but the A+ comes from a single passing mention with no context at all, so is textbook UNDUE. Guy (help!) 23:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Aboideau, right, "children under 12 years old". In this case if we had a source saying that anti-abortionists gave it A+ then that would be fine. As would the fact of A+ with an analysis saying what proportion were anti-abortion zealots. We have neither. Guy (help!) 00:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)