Talk:Wizards (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

GA Success

Having reviewed the article I believe that Wizards is suitable to receive GA Status. TO improve I'd suggest that perhaps a little more meat and length (apologies for the double entendre there) could be added, perhaps a little more on the development history and a slightly more in depth (not overboard though) plot analysis. Overall good work though. BigHairRef | Talk 02:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Song names

What were the names of the songs played during the final battle scenes? 24.227.61.5 (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

David Brin

Once again, the censor have been at this article. The quote-unquote "math rock" band 65daysofstatic sampling a line is worth noting, but the award-winning David Brin calling it "the most evil thing produced since Goebbels ran the Nazi propaganda mill" is deleted in a blatant demonstration of POV.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not saying this is why it was deleted - but the link is dead and I couldn't find the article on David Brin's site. Isolater (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Brin apparently deleted it off the webpage and moved it offline to a book of essays. I found the page with Google Books and changed it to reference the hardcopy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing the line about David Brin is not "censorship". Brin is not a noteworthy source of film criticism. He may not like the film, but Mike Patton also does not like the band Wolfmother. Is it notable enough to mention in that band's biography? No. Nor is it a notable fact to report in Patton's biography. Sorry, but this pursuit is incredibly foolish. Brin is not a notable personality, what he wrote in some essay is not a notable criticism, and you are not going to claim "censorship" to get your POV represented in an article about a cartoon. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

I don't know who Mike Pattor or Wolfmother are, so I can't really discuss the matter there. Brin is a moderately notable personality, who published an essay that attracted some attention. It offered not merely like or dislike, but an analysis of the movie as a cultural artifact, something I think Wikipedia should dwell on more.

This is not my POV; I'm never seen the movie, and have no real opinion on it. I merely believe that it is an interesting critical quote that deserves a place in the article. The original debate about removing the line was an attempt to censor anything negative about the movie from the article; I accept that your actions were motivated by different factors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about Wolfmother, and I don't have the context to have any clue whether that's relevant. In any case, the discussion is about this quote on this article, not some quote on Wolfmother.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The point being, David Brin's statement is an opinion on the movie, not a relevant analysis, and there is no evidence that Brin's opinion is in any way relevant to this film's reception, considering Brin was, what, 12, when this movie came out? The mentioning of Mike Patton's opinion of Wolfmother is relevant as far as discussing policy, in that one person's dislike of a band does not matter, one person's opinion of a film does not matter. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

The issue in Mike Patton was wrongly decided: see Percival Everett's comment in Jefferson Bible. I'm sure with a little work, I can find a dozen more examples. The reception of a work of art extends to more than the immediate response, and it usually takes decades to get a mature response to a work of art, which can even then change throughout time. (Note that the works of Terence and Plautus have given way to Aristophanes in popular classical theater, both reading and performance.) Note that Rotten Tomatoes is all based on 21st century reviews.

I also find it very concerning that the text is still biased. The statement that "Critics were generally positive in their response to the film" is supported by a statement from Bakshi, and is not supported by the evidence from Rotten Tomatoes or by any independent reliable source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Percival Everett is more notable than David Brin. I've heard of Percival Everett. I've never heard of David Brin. And RT is hardly a stone source for aggravating film reception. It's more garnered toward recent reviews, not to reviews of a film when it first came out. Night of the Living Dead had terrible reviews when first released, but has something like 100% on RT. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Whether or not one editor has heard of someone is not by any means the measure of whether someone is notable. Comparing David Brin to Percival Everett certainly tells me that the Wikimedian collective tends to consider Brin more notable; he has a photo on his page, his page is twice as long (18k versus 9k bytes), and Brin has a nice Wikiquote page, unlike Everett who has none. More over, Brin is a professional in the field of science fiction, whereas Everett is an English professor who has no training in American history or religion, so Brin is the better source.

The section is "Reception and legacy"; certainly your example of the Night of the Living Dead is a prime example of why more than just immediate responses are important.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry, I just don't see how adding a recent remark by a Lord of the Rings fan is going to fix this problem, when it's going to make it worse. There was no comparison. Everett is a professor, and Brin is a science fiction fan. Being a Trekkie does not make one's opinion on science fiction notable, and being a LOTR fan does not make one's opinion on Wizards notable. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Oh, you're User:Ibaranoff24. That explains a lot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

For any new readers, please see Talk:Wizards_(film)/Archive01 where this same argument happened before, but apparently Sugar Bear has a block on the whole David Brin thing, because I mentioned who he was and why he is notable there, too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please do not delete content from the article on the basis that you personally feel it is irrelevant while adding content that actually is irrelevant. It is more important to discuss international reception of the film than to use a quote from an unimportant author who is notable only to you because he's a LOTR fan. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Inane journalist comments aren't interesting, nor are they "international reception"--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Wizards (film)/Archive 2 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: I see no reason to believe that Brin is a significant film critic or any reason that his opinion ought to be given any more weight than any other person's. I don't think it should be included unless there was some public brouhaha over his comment and that hullabloo can be reliably sourced. I would note that what's gone on here since 00:12 UST on 24 March clearly constitutes an edit war even though the three-revert rule does not appear to have been violated. (Wikipedia:3RR#Application_of_3RR says, "3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken. It is not an 'entitlement' to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR.") The war needs to stop, right now, and the dispute be worked out here on the talk page before any more editing takes place.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to work it out on the talk page; if God Almighty trashed Wizards, SugarBear would dismiss him as a LOTR fan. Brin's essay actually did generate quite a bit of fuss when it was first published, because of its criticism of LotR, but nobody cared enough about Wizards to respond to that line.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So, God can take time out of his busy schedule to review movies now? Should we start watching the article Ishtar (film) to see if God makes an edit to say "you know, I liked this movie"? (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

It appears that the edit war as to Brin has stopped, but is continuing as to the Swastika comment. That quote having not been within the original Third Opinion request, I will not now or in the future express any opinion about it. However, both editors need to be aware that if the war continues at all after this moment that I will report both of you for edit warring and/or ask that the page be fully protected against editing. I have left edit war warnings on both of your talk pages. If you can't reach agreement here on the talk page, do another Third Opinion request (I can't answer it, but another Third Opinion Wikipedian can) or, better in these circumstances, take it to Wikipedia:Content noticeboard or the talk page of a relevant project, do a RFC, take it to the Mediation Cabal or something else, but don't disrupt Wikipedia by edit warring. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sugar Bear's edit message was "Stop removing content", so I've made sure that the article contained all the content that's been deleted recently. I do insist that we don't credulously accept Bakshi's claim that critics were generally positive, instead giving its source in the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So, basically, you hate this movie and want to add the opinions of non-notable authors while removing sourced facts, like that the film was well received by critics, because you misread the source? Your goal is, what, to force your own POV upon the article? (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

If a Hugo Award and a Nebula Award doesn't make you a notable author, what makes Bakshi a notable filmmaker? What does make anyone a notable author? What notable authors do we cite in the article, because I don't see a one.

There's no source given in the article for that claim about critics; that page linked to says nothing about it. Maybe some later pages in the interview might, but that's not what the link goes to, and there's reasons citations have page numbers. That statement should be marked as uncited, because it is. I don't think we can say "well received by critics" based on anything that page says; it's too subjective. Relying on pro-Bakshi/Wizards sources is a sure way to add a POV to the article.

I don't hate the movie. I don't have a POV to force on the article. My goal is to make this article that doesn't portray Wizards and Bakshi as the greatest ever.

Let me quote Mick Martin & Marsha Porter's Video Movie Guide 1988, page 1110:

Director-animator Ralph Bakshi's cost-cutting corners, which had not been that evident in his Fritz the Cat films, became a little too noticeable in this charming little tale of ultimate good against ultimate evil. [...] The conflict builds well until its climax, which (sadly) negates the premise of the entire battle. Many felt cheated by this one, with good cause. [...]

Is any of that going to be added to the article, because I don't see anything along that lines in the article right now? Or are you going to dismiss that as non-notable POV?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have asked a sysop, RegentsPark (talk · contribs) to revert today's edits and fully protect the page. If he's not available, I'll take the matter to the page protection or 3RR noticeboard. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've protected the article for three days while i figure things out. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Now that I've taken a look at this article, I've reverted the last edits by Prosfilaes. I did this for two reasons. First, though a 3O is not binding, it was requested and given so, other things being equal, it makes sense to accept that as the status quo. Of course, other things are usually not 'equal' and, in this case, the included Brin statement is controversial enough that we should err on the side of excluding it unless there is a consensus to include it in the article. I'm going to extend the protection a bit longer and that should give you enough time to figure out the next step in dispute resolution if you feel it necessary. Meanwhile, I'm watching the article so if you need any non-controversial and/or consensus edits, let me know and I'll make them. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What dispute resolution do you suggest? I see no point in trying to talk it out after he says of an author who has won both the Hugo Award and the Nebula Award, the highest awards in science fiction, that "Brin is a science fiction fan. Being a Trekkie does not make one's opinion on science fiction notable".--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing: It is very offensive for a non-Jewish author to compare a Jewish filmmaker to Joseph Goebbels because he made a movie that the non-Jewish author did not like. In addition to all the other reasons why the comment should be removed, such as that the author is not particularly notable (despite awards of imaginary importance) and that science fiction fans are not a notable source of film criticism, the fact that Brin's remark is offensive should be taken into consideration. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC))

I rest my point; he labels the Hugo and Nebula, the most important awards in the field of science fiction, "awards of imaginary importance", and again calls Brin as a "science fiction fan". How exactly am I supposed to discuss anything with him?

BTW, surely science fiction authors are notable sources of criticism of science fiction, both literary and film?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point, made by multiple editors, which is that Brin is not a notable source of film criticism, and that his comment is offensive. What part of this do you not understand? (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

And is the comment from the author of a guide to movies that Bakshi's cost-cutting measures became especially noticeable in this movie, is that also offensive?--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

What about WP:NPOV? You have got to learn how to cite someday.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove uncited sentence

"Critics were generally positive in their response to the film,<ref name="FPS">{{cite web |url=http://www.fpsmagazine.com/feature/040703bakshi.php |title=Interview with Ralph Bakshi |accessdate=2007-03-25 |last=Townsend |first=Emru |authorlink= |date=July 2, 2004 |format= |work= |publisher=FPS |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= }}</ref>"" is an uncited controversial statement in the article, and hence should be deleted. It claims to have a cite, but the end-all and be-all of the text on Wizards on that page is:

When Bakshi's Wizards was released on DVD in May, I had the opportunity to speak to Bakshi in a conference call with him (from his home in New Mexico) and 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment's publicist, Josh Kushins. We spoke for the better part of an hour on Wizards,

Just as importantly, that statement is not one that should be casually written in a Wikipedia article. Whether the set of reviews is "generally positive" or not is an opinion, and should be cited as such. --Prosfilaes (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry. This is POV pushing. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC))
  • It's an uncited statement; that has nothing to do with POV. See WP:V, particularly "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged [... must] be attributed to a reliable source [...], and that the source directly support the material in question."--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Prosfilaes, that link has multiple pages. This quotes Bakshi saying, "I didn't get any criticism. People pretty much loved Wizards." I wouldn't cite Bakshi for a retrospective statement of how his film was received, though. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Which is what the pages= option on the template is for, I presume. If Sugar Bear had provided that quote, we could have gone forward. Again, I don't think an off-the-cuff statement by Bakshi is appropriate to back up "Critics were generally positive in their response to the film"; why don't we repeat the quote verbatim, if that's what we have.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)