Talk:Captain Marvel (film)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2019 and 24 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kiriat Monterroso, Cecybueso (article contribs).

Discrepancy with the use of IMDB in the Audience Response section

I made a note in the relevant section referencing and linking to IMDB's audience score for the movie, seen in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Captain_Marvel_(film)&diff=954100677&oldid=954100605#Audience_response. It was however removed by an editor on the basis of IMDB not being a reliable source. This puzzled me as IMDB is used at the very top of the same section to say and reference to Captain Marvel being the most anticipated movie of 2019 on it. I thus removed that IMDB reference, since it was deemed an unreliable source elsewhere in the same section, only for another editor to revert on the basis of "IMDb's findings for this are from audience pulls and such, not from them directly, unlike the other source that was reverted." This made absolutely 0 sense as they were IMDB's own polls and implied that IMDB's own audience polls WERE reliable but their own audience reviews were not. Upon challenging the editor's position, he then totally changed his tune and replied, "IMDb's source for this is justifiable based on standard reports as it was controlled by their staff, all other info on their is open to user editing, thus making those unreliable." Can someone explain to me what the hell this means, as neither the audience polls nor audience reviews are controlled by any staff? Anyone can vote in the poll for whatever movie they want just like anyone can leave their own review saying whatever they want. Neither is controlled or influenced by any staff. When I went to the editor's talkpage to discuss this further, he deleted my response, so I am bringing this here to now get other points of view.

As far as I can see, if IMDB is an unreliable source as has been stated, then you can't apply it at the start of one section to make overly positive points about a movie while then deleting it in the exact same section saying it's unreliable for anythng less than positive about the same movie. It appears to be a violation of WP:NPOV as well as WP:DUE and some consistency on the use of this source needs to be established. Davefelmer (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

IMDB is not cited as a source for any content in the article (except as publisher of Box Office Mojo, which is a reliable source). The other mention of IMDB is cited to a Variety source, which is a reliable source per WP:RSP. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: Looking at the comment you made at Trailblazer's talk page, it was more of an attack than anything else. Now, about the subject in question. Audience reviews are generally considered unreliable because sites like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb have no way to check if the audience reviewers have actually seen the film. IMDb's audience review scores aren't unreliable because IMDb is an unreliable source, Rotten Tomates is a reliable source and their audience reviews are still considered unreliable.

IMDb is in itself an unreliable source when it comes to the information it contains on movies, namely all the credits, trivia, etc., because anyone can add this information. It would be similar to citing a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, these IMDb polls let those users vote on which movie they anticipate the most. In order to vote, you have to be registered, you can change your vote but you can't vote twice. Since there's no verification required, unlike in a review where verifying if the reviewer saw the film would be required, IMDb's Most Anticipated Movie polls are generally considered reliable. The source used in this article is from Variety, one of the most reliable sources on the subject of films. That's a pretty good sign that these polls are considered reliable. El Millo (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@El Millo: You say there's no way to tell on the IMDB audience reviews if someone has actually seen the film, but that's the case for all audience reviews. How can you verify if someone has actually seen a given movie on ANY of these services? And just because you have to register to vote in these polls, it doesn't mean that someone can't register twice from different emails, usernames, etc and enact vote manipulation. There's nothing to stop or to suggest these are totally genuine either. Where do you draw the line on this sort of thing? It just feels like one standard is being applied to one thing, and another to something that is inherently totally similar.

My question for you guys is ultimately this, if IMDB is deemed an unreliable source, does its reference in a reliable source suddenly make it reliable? If Variety had gone, "according to Wikipedia..." in an article, would Wikipedia automatically be deemed reliable on its own for the given subject simply because it was referenced in a reliable source? If not, the Variety article includes plenty of other metrics to judge audience anticipation for the movie by, and those can all and should all be kept while the reference to IMDB itself (the half sentence at the top of the section) should be removed, as it itself is an unreliable source by which to judge. Davefelmer (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven't really read the large amount of text in this thread, just giving my opinion of the use of IMDb here. We generally do not use audience scores such as the one at IMDb because we do not know where they have come from, whether the people have actually seen the film, etc. and that is why the IMDb audience score should not be included here. We have a made an exception for the Rotten Tomatoes audience score in this article only because it is accompanied by significant coverage due to a noteworthy situation. Additionally, we do not generally use IMDb for other reasons because anyone can update IMDb and so any "scoops" that come from IMDb cannot be verified or trusted. The use of IMDb at the start of the section here does not fall under that umbrella because we are not using it as a source of information about the film, we are specifically using it for something that is not a scoop about the film and does not need to be verified as coming from people who have seen the film (since the ranking is about anticipation, not reviews). - adamstom97 (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

So I go back to my general points; how do you know someone hasn't register twice or thrice from different emails, usernames, etc and enacted vote manipulation on an anticipation poll? You have no way of verifying how genuine these are in the same way you don't know about the audience reviews yet one is reliable and one isn't? How so?

And I ask again; if Variety had gone, "according to Wikipedia..." in an article, would Wikipedia automatically be deemed reliable on its own for the given subject simply because it was referenced in a reliable source? Nobody has yet answered this nor explained the general policy. Davefelmer (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Variety is the reliable source, not IMDB, and yes we do sometimes mention Wikipedia when independent reliable sources do. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Davefelmer: I see where you're coming from and completely understand the confusion, but it may be easier to divide your concerns into two parts instead of trying to lump them together. Both are separate issues despite appearances that they are nearly identical. First, let's look at the audience scores you attempted to add to the article. There is a clear cut guideline against this at MOS:FILM#Audience response, which if you haven't read I highly suggest you start there. It reflects community-wide consensus of which very, very few exceptions exist. The Rotten Tomatoes audience score was included in the article, because it qualified as an exception for several reasons. I won't delve too deep into why, but there are past discussions on this talk page (and at Star Wars: The Last Jedi) that reached a consensus to include it. I encourage you to seek those out if you want to see arguments for and against as well as why it ultimately passed. The score on IMDB was not as widely reported or followed in sources, so in my opinion, it wouldn't have crossed the threshold needed for inclusion.

Now let's look at the opening line that you're bringing into focus:

In late December 2018, the film was named as the most anticipated 2019 film by IMDb, the most anticipated new standalone comic book film and the second-most anticipated blockbuster of 2019 according to the ticketing service Fandango, and the second-most anticipated superhero and overall film by Atom Tickets.

These are not necessarily reliable measures of anticipation. I'm with you on that, and I personally wouldn't include them except under one condition: they are reported by more than one major publication. You have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a seeker or arbiter of truth. We simply reflect what exists prominently in reliable sources. When something is iffy or questionable, the knee-jerk reaction is to wait to see if highly-reputable sources pick up on it as well. A primary source like IMDB publishing something they monitored internally is not usually enough on its own to warrant inclusion. As soon as Variety and other sources covered it, however, it becomes fair game for discussion. Don't misunderstand though. I'm not saying it SHOULD or MUST be included, but it's at that level where it can certainly be taken under consideration. Looks like it's been in the article since this early October edit by adamstom97, so it does have some implicit consensus which is a factor.

If you'd like to discuss the opening paragraph more and challenge the status quo, feel free to do so, but I don't think it will help much to try to lump both issues together in an all-or-nothing showdown. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't have distilled this down and explained it better myself GoneIn60! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: I never even implied it was an "all-or-nothing showdown", and I am in fact only talking about the opening line of the Audience Response section this entire time. The very section you linked to in MOS:FILM#Audience response details that we are to use "polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore and PostTrak (include both if available)". The key term here being 'RELIABLE source', which we have established IMDB is not. It doesn't say we can or should use polls from any source but only take audience reviews from reliable sources, it states that even polls must come from reliable sources themselves. And we don't know if IMDB's polls are reliable. As I keep saying, there's nothing to suggest that they aren't susceptible to vote manipulation from users logging in through different emails, usernames and accounts etc to manipulate the results of the polls. As IMDB itself is considered unreliable, we can't and shouldn't be including any of the information from it. The part about IMDB in the sentence should thus be deleted, while the rest of the websites brought up in the source should remain. Davefelmer (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You may want to take a closer look at the IMDB statement regarding most anticipated movies of 2018. It doesn't say that this is a public website poll. It says that they based this information on the number of page views for each movie title at their site, and even listed the number of unique visitors. Again, I'm not defending its inclusion, but I think you are misrepresenting what exactly we're talking about here.

"...I am in fact only talking about the opening line of the Audience Response section this entire time."

You spent some time talking about how you were reverted, once for adding the IMDB audience scores and then again for trying to remove that IMDB statement in the opening. You are trying to tie the two together by saying that if IMDB is unreliable, then both should go. That is the "all-or-nothing" approach of yours I was referring to. We're trying to tell you that context matters (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). A source may be unreliable for one statement, but it could be reliable for another. Here, we're talking about two different kinds of statements that require two different assessments. We should not equate them as being one in the same. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The point is that imdb isn't used as the source--it's the subject of an article by a secondary source (Variety). If a reliable secondary source (such as Variety) mentions the audience scores, then we can cite them and mention the audience scores. DonQuixote (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: That's even less reliable! How is the number of people that simply viewed the movie title page indicative of how many people actually want to see the movie? What if they clicked on it by mistake? What if they clicked on it, checked it out and decided it wasn't for them? This on top of the potential for creating multiple accounts to view the page a ton of times that IMDB would have no way of stopping. And this is an unreliable source we are talking about from the beginning mind you! None of this is reliable.

I only mentioned being reverted on the audience score to give wider context to the debate, I never mentioned it again afterwards. You are continously explaining general things without ever actually answering any of the points, all the while saying you dont have a say one way or the other and just want to explain things! Davefelmer (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: So if a reliable source went, "according to Wikipedia..." within it, we could then publish 'according to Wikipedia' on the article and subject it was referring to? Because as far as I'm aware, we couldn't do that. Davefelmer (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A reliable source would only do that if it's commenting on Wikipedia, in which case it'll probably included in Criticism of Wikipedia. If it's using Wikipedia as a source, then it's probably not a reliable source. And...that's the point. When reliable sources criticise imdb (positively or negatively) or discuss imdb in some other form, then we can mention imdb as the subject of the secondary source. DonQuixote (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: DonQuixote went straight to the point, and ultimately, that's where the focus needs to be. My goal was to get you out of the mindset that this was just another poll published by IMDB, and therefore should be treated the same way. Not the case, and it seems we've finally moved past that. Hallelujah! --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: But there are plenty of sources out there that already say IMDB is unreliable, on top of it not being seen as reliable on the project. Why would we use a reliable source (Variety) to site an unreliable source like IMDB, especially when alternatives that are more reliable exist within the very same article? It makes no sense. You say a reliable source wouldnt site an unreliable one like Wikipedia because then it itself probably wouldnt be a reliable source, but here we literally have an example of one regarded as reliable citing one that isnt. Since there are reliable alternatives in the same article, why not remove the mention of the unreliable source and keep the reliable ones in? Davefelmer (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, it's quite simple. Let's say the subject in question is me. I'm not considered a reliable source so you can't use me as a source. However, if a reliable secondary source were to discuss me, for some reason, then you can use the secondary source to write about me. It's the same for any other thing, such as imdb. It's not reliable, so you can't use it as a source. However, if a reliable secondary source were to discuss imdb, for some reason, then you can use the secondary source to write about imdb. If you can't understand that, then it's not my problem. DonQuixote (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Obviously I get what you're saying, I was alluding to perhaps reviewing the methodology behind that process but I see that this is probably not the best place to do that. I likewise see that in any case it's quite clear that I won't be getting a consensus in favour of making the proposed change so will leave it there at that. I appreciate everyone taking the time to join the discussion! Davefelmer (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Highest-grossing and peak positions

@Davefelmer: here is the archived version to see the film's peak position, listed there as 22nd, but afterward changed to 23rd in the list given an update of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King's box office total. It's all already referenced in that article. The inclusion of this information is common practice in articles on highest-grossing films, see Spider-Man: Far From Home, Avengers: Infinity War, Captain America: Civil War, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, and many more. El Millo (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not a peak position, that's just an old version of the highest ranking movies list, evidenced by the likes of Joker not being on there and Aladdin being shown to still be playing in theatres. And what about Frozen 2, Spider Man Far From Home and Lion King which also overtook it? The information you pitch for is pure WP:SYNTH. And as previously discussed as well, something being wrong elsewhere doesnt mean it's fine to include it in other places. You've seen plenty of other examples where it isn't included such as Dr Strange (2016 film) and Thor: Ragnarok. Davefelmer (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Strange grossed $677 million, Thor: Ragnarok grossed $854 million. Doctor Strange's peak position was 94th, as seen here; Ragnarok's peak position was 60th, as seen here. At List of highest-grossing films, which is a featured list by the way, only the top 50 are shown. Hence, neither of those films is nor was included in the list, so they do not serve as examples. All articles cited above except for Star Wars: The Last Jedi are GA-status, it's hard for five (and many more) good articles to have the same "mistake". Whether right or wrong, it's still common practice and thus consensus. In order to make a change, the existing consensus needs to be overturned.

"Joker not being on there and Aladdin being shown to still be playing in theatres. And what about Frozen 2, Spider Man Far From Home and Lion King which also overtook it?" Do you not understand what peak position means? It's the highest rank a film has been on the list. Captain Marvel came out on March 8, and all those films were released later. Aladdin came out on May 24, Spider-Man: Far From Home on July 2, The Lion King on July 19, Joker came out on October 4, and Frozen II on November 22. Hence, it's completely right for Aladdin to still be playing and for Joker not to be playing yet. And those who overtook it had no influence on its peak position at all, precisely because they overtook it. El Millo (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Dude, what on Earth are you talking about? Who cares about how many movies are listed in the wikipedia article for highest grossing films? Wikipedia isn't a source for itself and that information tells us absolutely nothing. From your own sources here; and here, both Dr Strange and Thor Ragnarok appear in the same top 100 list that you link for Captain Marvel to show that movie's peak position, hence by that logic the same source can be likewise used to find dates to list peak positions for those 2 as well as any other movie that's ever been in the top 100, as per that source. Should I do that? Also, again, just because it is written somewhere else on wikipedia does not make it correct. There are also plenty of places where it is not written. And your second point is pure WP:SYNTH, you can't ultimately find a random date to say this was a movie's box office peak as the sources themselves dont say that. It's WP:OR at it's finest. Davefelmer (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The featured list does that, that means Wikipedians decided to do that. There's an implicit consensus to include this information. If you think it is SYNTH, then you're against that Peak column existing in the first place, and you're against this information being included in all articles. That means you're against the established consensus. If you want to make this change you have to change the established consensus. You cannot eliminate this information before you change the established consensus. El Millo (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again, just because something exists somewhere else does not make it correct. Plus, you're forgetting that SOME articles on the featured list appear to do that, others do not. See Zootopia for example. Yes, I am against the peak column as it's SYNTH and OR, no reliable sources outright state or discuss the movie's 'peak'. And there doesn't appear to be an "established" consensus on the matter, rather a somewhat implicit one at best where someone starting editing in the information on some of the movies in the featured list article and nobody noticed or decided to look into and debate its merits. It's clear that an actual discussed and established consensus on the matter needs to be set. Davefelmer (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment – Let me start off by saying a film's peak chart position can be useful information. Return of the King is a prime example of this, as it was once #2 on the list. That's a significant fact that deserves coverage in an encyclopedia. Captain Marvel's peak position, on the other hand, probably doesn't qualify. Exceeding $1 billion is no longer an extremely rare feat, and ranking #22 (or #23) isn't as significant. Perhaps a passing mention or two in the article body would suffice if sources reported that ranking, but I don't believe it qualifies for inclusion in the lead at this point. And that brings me to the next point. Captain Marvel's peak position needs to be mentioned in prose within the article body, and of course, backed by reliable source citations. I skimmed the box office section and didn't see this statistic specifically called out.

Two things probably need to happen at this point:

1. We can continue the discussion here to gauge community-wide consensus on the matter, linking to it from WT:FILM to increase visibility. Or we can simply begin a new discussion there. This needs to be settled on a wider scale and it may ultimately evolve into an RfC.
2. The lead section is a summary of the body's most significant points. If the information doesn't exist in the body, then it shouldn't exist in the lead. This should be remedied quickly by those who support its inclusion, or I will proceed to remove it from the lead. A snapshot of the film's ranking at Box Office Mojo isn't enough to stand on its own; we need secondary source analysis of the ranking to justify inclusion.

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but I think it's time we get a community stance on the subject. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Update – Just noticed the discussion is being held at WT:FILM#Should we be listing a movie's "peak position" at the box office?. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Critical Reception in the Lead

Hi. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so bare with me. I noticed in the lead that the critical reception for the film is quite brief, although the actual section says it received criticism for a "convoluted plot and lack of originality".[190]. I'm just curious if we can mention that in the lead as it is already backed up. What do you guys think? Thanks TrueFilmBuff (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed at length, see Talk:Captain Marvel (film)/Archive 2#Critic summary. The Hindustan Times article that you are quoting was based on early reviews of the film. It may not be representative of later reviews. The only thing that these "reviews of reviews" seem to agree on is Larson's performance.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Using better sources than The New York Times where available as the sole source or a supporting source

Should we use better sources than The New York Times where available as the sole source or supporting source? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: following this revert. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, The New York Times is HIGHLY reliable. There's no need to replace or supplement the sourced content as all of our text is covered by that source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure it's their report/originator of the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure why we need to discuss "better sources than The New York Times" when that's about as good as it gets. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Emir, “personally preferring” doesn’t equal to the source being unreliable or disallowed. Don’t remove based off of a “personal preference”. Rusted AutoParts 23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I said that we could add them as additional sources if we decide to keep The New York Times one. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned with what could conceivably be taken as New York Times-bashing, as right-wing people often do when the Times reports something they don't like. I'm not suggesting this particular case has a political background — Emir of Wikipedia has always been a good and responsible editor, in my experience — so I'd just like to ask what Emir's particular concerns are about The New York Times, which has as good or better a reputation for accuracy and original reporting as any publication on the planet. I mean, when the Times wants some studio executive to verify what some director says, that studio executive calls back. That's true of very few publications.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

LOL, “better sources than The New York Times”.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Can a freely accessible source be used to support a statement also sourced to The New York Times?

Can a freely accessible source be used to support a statement also sourced to The New York Times? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The NYT article sourced is already freely accessible. The inclusion of a second source seems redundant. —El Millo (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It says you have to subscribe to view it for me and presumably other readers. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:PAYWALL. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I am talking about adding an additional source or two, not about removing paywalled source from The New York Times . Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

I was specifically hoping to add one of the two removed in this edit, but I understand other editors might have other suggestions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't need an RfC for this. WP:V says that content must be verifiable, it doesn't say that sources must be free access - in fact, it explicitly states Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment ... --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)