Jump to content

Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elaqueate (talk | contribs) at 17:31, 23 December 2014 (→Unacceptably biased question wording: really?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RFC - Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own film review?

CONSENSUS
Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. Samsara 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own film review? The relevant discussion can be found in the "Christian Toto" talk page section. To summarize, there is agreement to add a positive film review to the otherwise negative Critical response section, but there is disagreement on whether an attributed quote from a film review published by Breitbart.com should be excluded due to Verifiability sourcing policy. The dispute isn't about the proposed quote's content, but whether the source is allowable here.VictorD7 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Toto's piece isn't a "SPS" (self published source), and no, even if it was, policy states they are "usually", not "only", "limited to articles about themselves or their activities". Here, given Toto's credentials, the self published exception for experts would apply anyway.VictorD7 (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever. We need a pretty compelling reason to employ a contemptible source like Breitbart, with its well-documented history of character assassination and contempt for truth and accuracy, and none has been offered beyond the repeated justification that we merely can. Even if we can employ a source, one must offer an affirmative reason to employ it and develop consensus for that reason. In this case, there are dozens upon dozens of film critics, many of them "frequently quoted by Rotten Tomatoes", all of them likely members of one Critics Association or another, but there is only one that VictorD7 has been arguing for weeks to include in the article, while offering no compelling reason we should single that critic out above the others who are not currently included. Gamaliel (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason for inclusion would be that Toto is the most prominent professional film critic to positively review the film (Gamaliel was one of those who agreed to add a positive quote, btw, before finding an excuse to delete a proposed quote from a different positive reviewer named Offer, before Toto was proposed, on the grounds that Offer's site supposedly didn't look professional enough), but the issue here is whether Toto's review in Breitbart must be excluded on sourcing policy grounds. Many people find The Onion and Huffington Post "contemptible" for character assassination and disregard for truth and accuracy, but that doesn't mean they should automatically be excluded on QS grounds from merely having their writers' quoted, attributed opinions covered in a section dedicated to covering such opinions. For the record, there's no "character assassination" in the Toto quote, though there's plenty of it in the Huffington Post blogger quotes currently included in the section.VictorD7 (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we going to rehash the Offer bullshit now? I said from the beginning I was willing to include Offer if someone presented evidence that he was a notable film critic, but you spent days arguing about it without presenting a shred of it, and probably would still be arguing about it today if I hadn't walked away from the discussion. Where is your evidence that Toto is the right-wing Roger Ebert? Again you attempt to draw a false equivalence between a gutter site like Breitbart and the Huffington Post, which for all its flaws, is still a somewhat respected member of the mainstream press corps. And who are these people who find The Onion "contemptible for character assassination"? We should pelt them with rocks and run them out of town back to Shelbyville. Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So much for your frivolous ad hominem claim that there's "only one" I've argued for weeks to include. As for the rest, readers can decide for themselves, though I'll reiterate that the question here is only whether Breitbart.com should be excluded as a source on Verifiability policy grounds, which is the argument currently being used to keep it off the page, not whether you personally like or agree with the site and/or Toto.VictorD7 (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointing out the obvious evidence on this page is hardly a "frivolous ad hominem claim", but then satire of The Onion isn't "character assassination" either. Despite your attempts to distract the issue with a non sequitur about my opinion, it's been pointed out many, many, many times during discussions related to this article that it is the general reputation of Breitbart that we have been pointing out, and it is this reputation that is what is a key policy issue. WP:RS: "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Breitbart has a reputation for the opposite, and lamely attempting to draw a false equivalence with your own low opinion of the generally respected Huffington Post, which, while hardly the New York Times, has a reputation for fact-checking and general accuracy, is a member of the White House Press Corps, etc., doesn't change that fact. With Breitbart's general unreliability and unsuitability on Wikipedia having been well established amongst everyone except you, you have to provide us a compelling reason to include Breitbart as a source which both overrides that unsuitability and explains why we can't simply use one of the many other movie reviewers who are also widely published, who are also members of professional critics organizations, who are also frequently quoted by Rotten Tomatoes, and who do not work for a shit sewer disguised as a professional news organization. Gamaliel (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with virtually everything you say, the notion that The Onion or rogerebert.com have a "reputation for fact checking" is laughable, and your personal opinion doesn't constitute evidence, but here I'll only point out that RS is always based on context, with evaluations on a case by case basis, and this is a high profile subjective film review in a section where such opinions are called for. Again, the question isn't whether you like the site, but whether the argument that sourcing policy automatically prohibits its use is valid. Perhaps your flippant "whatever" reply indicates that you know it isn't. VictorD7 (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't seem to get the point, or perhaps you do and are furiously dodging it by repeatedly bringing up false equivalences. The point has never been whether or not I like the site, as much as you need to pretend that is my point, the point is the odious reputation of the site makes it unusable for our purposes, even for opinions. And even if we carved out an exception for film reviews (And why should we? What's next? Film reviews from Rush Limbaugh and Daily Kos?) you've given us no reason to employ this film review above the many others available beyond the fact that you simply want to use it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering your defense of MMfA, I find your view of Breitbart difficult to square. You don't like the site, that much is clear, unfortunately that is not a valid argument. Arzel (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, your dislike for the site is blinding your judgment. Breitbart may have an "odious reputation" among leftist spinmeisters, but it's very popular among millions of other people, making the opinions of its feature professional film reviewer noteworthy, especially on an explicitly political documentary where we're otherwise only quoting from liberals less prominent than Toto. VictorD7 (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has an odious reputation amongst everyone not in the wingnut bubble, and a reputation for the opposite is required for us to employ it in Wikipedia. As has been pointed out many times, popularity is not the only metric, otherwise we could include film reviews from Rush Limbaugh and Daily Kos. Gamaliel (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if Limbaugh or the Daily Kos regularly publish reviews by professional critics, but I don't see why either of those sources would be any worse than The Onion operated site or the other sources the section currently uses. If simply having political bias is somehow a disqualifier (it isn't), then the currently quoted Peter Sobczynski of the blog rogerebert.com (the real Roger Ebert is dead, btw, making your earlier reference to him interesting), a self avowed "left-wing liberal" and (in my opinion) a sophomoric tripe peddler who fails to support any of his ignorant assertions, would certainly be out. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on who's living in the "wingnut bubble".VictorD7 (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have consistently and perhaps purposefully missed the point. There is a difference between a media organization having a political orientation and a media organization having a reputation amongst its peers as an open sewer. The former has the reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and accountability required by Wikipedia policies, the latter does not. Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose we'll also have to agree to disagree on whether The Onion has a "reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and accountability", on whether that's relevant when we're discussing properly attributed subjective opinions, on which sources are an "open sewer", and on which of us is consistently missing the point.VictorD7 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep bringing up The Onion like you've made a prima facie case that it is unreliable. Why, because it's funny? This is the AV Club we are specifically talking about, which in fact does have that reputation that you somehow insist it lacks. You talk about it like it is a zine stapled together in someone's basement, but it a serious media publication about pop culture whose writers have published respected and widely reviewed books and whose founding editor is now an editor for NPR. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you see The Onion's film blog as a "serious media publication" and a solid source for facts, but not Breitbart.com. Got it. Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. Of course we aren't discussing facts here, but properly attributed, subjective opinions. Breitbart's credibility is only relevant here in serving as a reliable source for Toto's words. VictorD7 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Breitbart is RS for nothing whatsoever insofar as WP is concerned. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Opinions cited as opinion are not a problem. The claim that "Breitbart is RS for nothing" is odious here, and where the issue is a film review of all thins, it is worse than odious. Film reviews are, indeed, opinions and citable as long as there is a reasonably notable source publishing it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, how can it be "worse than odious" to exclude a source which is not "a reasonably notable source publishing it"? SPECIFICO talk 14:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Breitbart is a reasonably notable source. It is used by the New York Times and other major RS sources, and is widely cited. That you find it not to be reasonably notable is interesting -- in such a case I urgently suggest you place it at AfD as nt notable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, why not? This would not be my go-to source for news and other facts. But to cite a review, why not? The political orientation of the source is publicly available (not that that really matters), and we would attribute it as its opinion anyway. --Precision123 (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable: This is a pretty straightforward application of WP:RSOPINION and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The source may be used for its opinion with attribution. The proposed edit did not suggest that we were endorsing any of Toto or Breitbart's views. The fact that Toto is on Rotten Tomatoes is evidence that his views are notable. And the fact that Breitbart has a conservative bias only reinforces the argument that the source should be included, as it represents a certain space in the sphere of movie criticism, one that is especially important when covering a conservative political documentary. Now, Gamaliel says we shouldn't single this critic out above the others who are not currently included. That may or may not be true but it's a WP:BALANCE issue, not a verifiability issue, and is beyond the scope of this discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shameless plug: Now that I've contributed to this discussion, please consider contributing to this one. Related subject matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case yes I agree with with Dr. Fleischman in this instance. For any other subject- Brietbart.com is in no way a reliable source. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Any editor could write a review and post it on facebook and it would be a reliable source for what they said. The real issue is whether is notability. Have any news media mentioned it? Since Christian Toto is not a prominent film critic, it would be hard to justify its inclusion. You might find a source however that says something like, "the film was widely panned by critics, although a number of right-wing bloggers praised it." TFD (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The person is a member of the "DC Film Critics Association" [1], giving reviews on WTOP, WBAL (Hearst radio)[2], writing for the Washington Times, and commentary for the "Dennis Miller Show". Seems to be a professional film critic and not a random "right wing blogger" as most of the films are not actually political. [3] He even got mentioned by William Safire. [4] Colorado Parent. Film Slate Magazine. Etc. So -- not a "random right wing blogger" but apparently an actual film critic who belongs to professional associations of film critics. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Critics organizations are plentiful and do not confer any particular notability. See the talk archives, we've discussed that issue extensively. Gamaliel (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Toto spears to be a member of at least five professional organizations, which places him a tad ahead of the "right wing blogger" meme. And got mentioned by William Safire in The New York Times, which is something I doubt has happened to you <g>. He is on RottenTomatoes list of "Tomatometer critics", and is credited with 665 reviews on that site. The reviews appear unrelated to whether the movie is political or not. Collect (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am a member of five professional organizations in my field. Can my blog be quoted on Wikipedia now? Gamaliel (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for which you have been paid and which are published by reliable sources absolutely can be used. No prolem at all. The material at hand is not from the person's "blog" however, so that part of your comment is not actually germane here. Collect (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be saying that my professional memberships do not confer upon my writings any notability and they can't be used here unless they are published by an RS. That is exactly what I have been saying about Toto and Offer from the beginning. Gamaliel (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Collect was not saying that, and this is getting petty and IDHT-ish. Let's move on please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are 100s of members of these associations and no reason to choose this one except for a misguided desire to balance the overwhelmingly negative reviews with one good review, creating a false parity. TFD (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you implied he was merely a "right wing blogger" and the fact is that a person earning his living in a profession, and a member of multiple professional organizations, is generally regarded as being a person in that profession. Clearly you think these organizations have zero requirements for membership, but that is hardly a valid reason for discounting multiple such professional organization memberships, and, apparently, some awards for work as a professional in such a field. Collect (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that your link saying he is a member of the Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association does not mention he works at Breitbart, nor do any of the other sources that mention his professional membership. He is not on the current list of members provided by the DC Association.[5] At Breitbart his role is film news not film criticism.[6] So it might be accurate to call him a former film critic not writing for a right-wing blog. TFD (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. Breitbart is a news organization not just a "right wing blog" and 2. what do you think "film news" encompasses? Has it occurred to you that a person working on "film news" would write film reviews? No? 3. Other groups include Broadcast Film Critics Association, etc. 4. You seem to elide the fact that RottenTomatoes counts him as a "Tomatometer" critic with 655 reviews. For some odd reason, I consider 655 film reviews to be a significant oeuvre. Collect (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, you asked if any other media had mentioned it. Does the fact that the New Orleans Times Picayune cited and quoted from the very Toto review in question cause you to reconsider your answer? I'll add that Toto is a very prominent critic, especially given his work for the Washington Times over the years and his current role at Breitbart, which is one of the highest trafficked online news sites. I'll also add that the question here is whether the sourcing argument currently being used to automatically exclude Breitbart is valid, not whether a positive quote like Toto's should be included (that's already been decided in the affirmative), though the newspaper coverage can be relevant for showing that news sources consider Breitbart to be a reliable source for Toto's views. Even your current comments indicate that your answer should probably be changed to "yes".VictorD7 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That source is good because it summarizes what critics and others are saying, which helps us establish weight. But in this case we would be using the Times Picayune as a source not Breitbart. TFD (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RS guidelines state otherwise: "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." Only if that's impossible for some reason (it's unavailable), is using a reliable secondary source quoting from the original suggested. Again, this RFC isn't about weight, but the specific question as to whether Breitbart is a reliable source for the review it published. If it's good enough for Rotten Tomatoes and the New Orleans Times Picayune, it should certainly be good enough for us. The section already uses the various blogs where the original reviews it quotes are located as its sources. VictorD7 (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I replied too quickly. The Times Picayune does not mention Toto's review, it just provides a link. It summarizes them as ""America" wasn't widely screened for critics, but the first handful of reviews are trickling in, and they're not particularly glowing." The guideline you quoted says, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Normally that would mean using the secondary source as a summary of what the primary source said. Obviously if it directly quoted the source we should add that too. TFD (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does so mention the review. It even quotes from it, along with providing quotes from several other prominent critics, and links directly to the "full review" on Breitbart. We aren't discussing general article building here, but this film review section, which (as is always the case in Wikipedia movie article critical reception sections) quotes attributed opinions from pro film critics sourced by their full reviews. Summarizing would be a different segment and process. You still seem to be hung up on the weight argument, which is off topic for this RFC, as if we're building the section from scratch. At issue here is the specific question as to whether Breitbart is a reliable source for its own author's words. Unless you have some argument to make otherwise, you should change your answer to "yes". VictorD7 (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Dislike of the site for their conservative views is not a valid argument for dismissing the site. Considering well known liberal sites like MMfA are regularly used, it is hard to argue that Breitbart can not. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FWIW, if we're going to have an extended discussion about Toto's qualifications, it may be worth considering the criteria Rotten Tomatoes uses for "Tomatometer" eligibility, since as previously noted he's a Tomatometer critic. Relevant exerpts:
"Online critics must have published no less than 100 reviews across two calendar years at a single, Tomatometer-approved publication, and all reviews should have an average length of at least 300 words to be considered for individual approval."
"Online publications must achieve and maintain a minimum 500,000 unique monthly visitors according to comScore, Inc or Nielsen Net Ratings and reviews must have an average length of at least 300 words. Publications must also show a consistent standard of professionalism, writing quality, and editorial integrity across all reviews and articles. Lastly, site design and layout should also reflect a reasonable level of quality and must have a domain name specific to the property."
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MMfA does not have a film criticism section. The World Socialist Web Site (a Tomatometer approved publication) however does,[7][8] but I don't see left-wingers clamoring to add them to articles to balance the corporate media. TFD (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WSWS didn't review America, so this is pretty irrelevant. Aside from the fact that it has nothing to do with reliability (the subject of this discussion). Everyone understands your view, move on please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You just said that being Tomatometer approved means that we can add critics' views and I pointed out that weight determines we should not provide undue weight to small minority views. WSWS did not review this film nor did most critics and for the same reason. It was best ignored. I doubt any of the editors who want glowing reviews added to the article have actually seen the movie. TFD (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly enough, you seem to have read something I did not find in his post. I suppose it means either my eyesight is atrocious or ... What DrFleischman appears to have said is that RottenTomatoes has fairly stringent criteria for calling a person a Tomatometer critic, and that those criteria include professionalism and writing quality, and a substantial output of substantive film reviews. Collect (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I replied, lots of people qualify for this rating and mentioned the film reviewers at the WSWS, who present a Trotskyist view of films. The issue is which of these hundreds of reviewers to include in movies about films, unless you think every article should mention every review. Some reviewers are more significant than others. For example, the late Roger Ebert's review in the Chicago Tribune was the most commonly cited. Peter Travers in Rolling Stone and reviews in Variety also are considered significant, and usually there is no objection to including them.

And while Rotten Tomatoes picked up Toto's column at the Washington Times, they do not mention his writing at Breitbart. His blurb at Rotten Tomatoes does not say he works for Breitbart and the writing is not mentioned at the Rotten Tomatoes page for the film.[9] Notice that they list 2 "fresh reviews" - Toto is not one of them.[10] So either his writing at Breitbart falls below their standards, or Toto has not asked them to include his new column. Or probably he does not want to follow the guidelines set for film reviewers in his new column.

It seems like cherry-picking to blunt the verdict of the critics that it was not a good film.

TFD (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, most likely, his review was posted on a site they did not pick up -- they show only 24 critic reviews you might note. Andy Webster of the NYT reviewed the film, and I suspect is considered a professional in the field.[11] Your interesting argument is that he is not an acceptable critic as a result. RT does not list every review from every member of the Tomatometer list, and does not claim to do so. "Evidence of absence" is a logical fallacy. RT selects reviews for each movie. Toto was used by RT in May, 2014 for a review quote.[12] 665 quotes total on RT. Andy Webster has 228 quotes total on RT. The "WSWS" is not at [13] the RT site as being a publication on their list. Nor is the page given as "proof" that it is on any "approved list" anything more than "page not found". It does list some reviews from it total list - ending in2013, and almost all before 2012. So much for that claim. Nor do any of its reviewers appear in any way on the RT site - and absolutely not on its list of critics vetted for the Tomatometer. Debunked as an argument from square one. "Joanne Laurier" agreed with the Tomatometer zero per cent of the time in her 15 reviews (as opposed to 665). "Prairie Miller" is a legit film critic - who did not do any WSWS reviews since ever. In short the WSWS claim is non-existent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes has a list of critics and where they write, including Toto in the Washington Times and several other media columns[14] and Joanne Laurier and Prairie Miller in WSWS.[15] As you can see that pick up every single column and use them to determine their score, which is basically the percentage of "fresh" reviews out of the total of all reviews in the columns they monitor. They do not include "reviews" that Toto writes in Breitbart. Obviously they allow both right-wing sources like the Washington Times and left-wing sources like WSWS. Are you arguing that because Toto was a recognized reviewer that his writings for Breitbart should be considered of the same quality, even though no organization recognizes them? TFD (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then how the hell do they miss the New York Times? Sheesh -- "Prairie Miller" has ZERO reviews from WSWS as the publisher on RT (I checked her reviews published on WSWS :) ). Zero. Laurier has 15. And you think you can say that is precisely the the same as a person with 665 reviews on RT? Really? Really??? And please stop the straw man of saying Breitbart publishing a film review by a professional film critic is merely a "right wing blogger"! LOL - this is past risible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think Andy Webster did review the film. The link you provided was to his review of D'Souza's 2016: Obama's America and it was included in the Tomatometer. See his page August 13, 2012.[16] And however many reviews Toto had included on RT, the fact is that he has not been used to calculate the RT score since May 9, 2014, while Miller was last used August 22, 2014. Prairie Miller's reviews have been included in the RT calculation 1597 times;[17] Joanne Laurier, 15 times;[18] Christian Toto 665 times.[19] So for whatever reason, RT has decided to ignore his recent postings. TFD (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Big Hollywood is a part of Breitbart.com, is listed on Toto's bio, and Rotten Tomatoes has used it hundreds of times for reviews by Toto and another Breitbart critic named John Hanlon. Clicking on the "Big Hollywood" quotes RT lists takes you directly to Breitbart. That RT has "only" used Toto as recently as a couple of months ago is meaningless. Not every noteworthy critic's review is cited by RT for each movie, as Collect quickly proved to you. What's relevant regarding RT is that the site has cited Toto several hundred times over the years (including direct links to his Breitbart reviews in recent years), along with another Breitbart critic to boot, and will likely continue to do so. That's beside the fact that this particular Toto review has been cited in other media, as I gave you extra spoonfeeding on earlier. You're spinning your wheels. VictorD7 (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RT in fact does use every noteworthy critic's review for each movie. That is the point of the website. It tells us what percentage of critics like or dislike a movie. Collect proved nothing. He said that Andy Webster's review of the film was not used. The reason it was not used was that he did not review the film - few critics did. Had he reviewed the film, he would have been included. For whatever reason, they have decided to drop Big Hollywood reviews. While that does not mean that Big Hollywood reviews are not significant, it does mean that RT cannot be used as evidence of their significance. TFD (talk)
At least you've reversed your earlier claim and now concede that Big Hollywood (Breitbart.com) is mentioned and cited on RT. You've provided absolutely no evidence that Toto has been dropped as a critic, or that approved critics have every review they publish quoted. In fact he's still listed as a "Tomatometer Approved" critic. RT has a small editor team choose what they deem to be a representative sample of critical opinion for each movie. Here are just some of the film reviews Toto wrote in the weeks before your May 9 cut off date that weren't featured on RT either: [20] May 5, [21] May 5, [22] May 1, [23] March 28. A critic might publish dozens of reviews a year but only have a few of those quoted by RT. And you're still dodging the subject of this RFC, which is simply whether or not Breitbart (aka Big Hollywood) is an RS source for Toto's words. Again, unless you have some argument to counter all we've posted proving it is, your answer should be "yes". VictorD7 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you care so much what his answer is? Accept the disagreement and move on. Gamaliel (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because I want an honest, clear survey. VictorD7 (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acceptable per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Furthermore, Brietbart.com meets WP:IRS, just as much as HuffPo does. Just because an editor may or may not agree with a political leaning of a RS (for instance both NYT and WSJ have noticable political bias in their non-opinion news articles), that does not make them any less of a reliable source. Regardless, this is about whether a verified opinion can be attributed to brietbart.com, to which the answer IMHO is yes.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you can demonstrate Brietbart's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by that policy, the comparisons to Huffington Post or the New York Times are fallacious. Gamaliel (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Acceptable Breitbart.com is a questionable source on multiple accounts as identified by WP:QS policy. It has an apparent conflict of interest with it's relationship with it's parent affiliate and competitors, is heavily reliant on opinion pieces for content and is referred to as an opinion website on WP, is seen as extremist by other news organizations, and publishes content based on rumor. Only one of these would be sufficient in labeling something as a questionable source, but Breitbart fits all of them. None of the pages mentioned by other editors overrides WP:RS which specifically states "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves" This review is not being placed on an article about breitbart.com or the author, nor is it being used on a topic about breitbart.com or the author. Therefore, by WP:QS policy, it should not be used...period. Quoting and attributing material to the author doesn't allow editors to bypass the policies in WP:RS. All other articles/essays regarding attribution are for sources that are already deemed reliable, they do not apply to sources that are not reliable, like questionable sources or napkin scribblings.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Is Breitbart.com a "reliable source with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight"? oh fergawdsakes, NO. Is it "reliable" in the sense that there is any question that their posted review by Toto is actually a review by Toto? I have not seen anything to question the legitimacy of that aspect of "reliability". The question then falls to 1) Is Toto an acknowledged and previously published "expert on the subject" so that his views could be considered under the WP:SPS and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_response and 2) if his expertise is established, does including his opinion appropriately reflect the mainstream views of the subject or is it a fringe minority view? Skipping to 2) if Toto were among a significant portion of reviewers that hold similar views, there would be examples of other reviewers with similar reviews - those have not been provided and so there does not seem to be a basis for inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for acknowledging that Breitbart is a reliable source for Toto's review. As for the rest, it's not vital to this RFC but I'll point out that there have been other positive reviewers (e.g. [24], [25], [26]), though Toto is the most prominent (at least as a critic; Klavan is a notable author, screenplay writer, and occasional reviewer). Regarding weight I'll note that we aren't discussing only having a positive quote, or even having one negative and one positive quote, but merely adding one positive quote to a section that already includes several negative ones. The positive side should be represented with at least one quote, and past discussion on this page reached a bipartisan consensus supporting the addition of such a quote. VictorD7 (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the blaze is another wing of brietbart's media empire Glenn Beck and of no better reputation than breitbart.com. the other two are bloggers and so no, you have not established that Toto is representative of a significant mainstream viewpoint. all that we have is that the thing posted on brietbart is very likely Toto's work.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually one of those "bloggers" (Offer) is counted and quoted in the Rotten Tomatoes aggregation, while the other, Andrew Klavan, is a notable novelist/screenwriter (blogs aren't prohibited in cases like this), and as far as I know The Blaze has nothing to do with Breitbart (both have better reputations as news sources than The Onion or rogerebert.com, which both currently appear in the section), but I was just refuting your claim that no positive reviews existed. The weight question has already been decided. The relevant question here is whether Breitbart is RS in this case, and fortunately your answer seems to be yes. VictorD7 (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, blaze is Glenn Beck's. but that is, if anything, worse than breitbart!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions vary.VictorD7 (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but no opinions of any consequence see beck/blaze as anything other than a hot steaming pile. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately the above exchange just established your level of expertise on the topic.VictorD7 (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REDFLAG the extraordinary claim that Beck has any credibility would require extraordinary sources. Got any evidence that anyone considers Beck reliable? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask "reliable for what?" (he's certainly reliable for his own opinion), or ask if you feel Ted Turner or Pinch Sulzberger are "reliable", or point out that Beck didn't write the review in question, or ask why you're continuing to post about this when you just proved above that you know virtually nothing about The Blaze (which employs a large staff that includes some impressive people), claiming it was part of "breitbart's media empire" until you googled it and saw Beck's name after my reply correcting your error, but this is getting really off topic. This section has enough spammed up clutter as it is. VictorD7 (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Ebert was the most respected movie critic in the world. TFD (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was nice and random.VictorD7 (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Yes. Acceptable. While Breitbart may not be RS for objective facts, a film review is - by its nature - not objective, but subjective. Everything is RS for opinion statements. BlueSalix (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. For starters, napkin scriblings, questionable twitter accounts, and questionable sources in general are not automatically reliable for subjective opinions. It is often impossible to verify if the author actually wrote it or if the piece was tampered/altered by the questionable publisher. This is precisely why WP:QS doesn't have an expert exception, while WP:selfpublish does. Furthermore, that doesn't mean that the source merits inclusion in the article and just because it's a subjective opinion, doesn't mean that it overrides policies established in WP:RS, specifically in the form of WP:QS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobydunk (talk • contribs) 16:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course none of that pertains to this situation, where there's no doubt Toto wrote what Breitbart ascribes to him, and BlueSalix is essentially correct in observing that the standards for simply covering properly attributed subjective opinions are quite different from those involved in reporting facts in Wikipedia's voice. Also, your interpretation of QS policy is hotly disputed and, if consistently applied here, would force the removal of every film critic quote currently in this article.VictorD7 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acceptable / Reliable Breitbart is not an anonymous blog, but it's also not the Washington Post. It has enough of a real-world presence to establish its authenticity for the purposes of reliably publishing opinion statements of its own writers, which is the only question being asked. It may not be a reliable secondary source for reporting the opinion statements of others, or even factual observations. DocumentError (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a questionable source my multiple standards of WP:QS and therefore can only be reliably used on an article/topic about itself. If an author writes an opinion piece on Global Warming that gets published by Breitbart.com, it doesn't merit inclusion of that author's opinion in an WP article about Global Warming. Other articles/subjects aren't treated differently regardless if the piece is suppose to be objective or subjective. The fact is questionable sources have very restricted reliable usage and a Breitbart.com article would only have appropriate use on an article about Breitbart.com itself or it's editors.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's not two categories of sources: RS and non-RS. From a RS perspective, the only question that should matter in this discussion is Do we believe Breitbart accurately published statements written by Toto? Sources like Breitbart and ThinkProgress can't be used to report objective facts but they can be used to report statements attributed to people whom general knowledge tell us are their own writers. This is one level above a source like freakzilla-123.blogspot.com which can't even be used to report statements attributed to their own writers, but one level below the Washington Post whose reports can be used to note objective facts. This doesn't meet a legal standard for proof that Toto wrote this, in which we should need an affidavit sworn and attested by a notary public, but the standards on WP are less than the standards required to convict someone in a court. DocumentError (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't two categories of sources, there are varying degrees of sources and so we have policies to determine when those sources can and can't be used. If a source falls into the category of being a "questionable source" then we have specific guidelines on when it's appropriate to use that source. WP:QS is the policy that limits questionable sources like breitbart.com from being used on anything but articles/topics about breitbart or the author itself. WP:QS doesn't make any determination or specification about "objective" versus "subjective" opinions/facts, it applies evenly to all content from a questionable source. Furthermore, being a questionable source is not just a matter of a source being unverifiable. WP:QS also pertains to sources that have an apparent conflict of interest, repeatedly attacks competitors, seen as extremist, etc. So it's not a matter of verifiability, but of conduct as well. WP:Questionable also specifically includes sources that are largely derived from "personal opinions" and limits where those sources can be reliably used. So a breitbart.com article from Toto is still an opinion from a questionable source, and therefore can only be used on articles/topics about itself as explained by WP:QS and WP:Aboutself. Again, being an opinion doesn't allow it to bypass WP policies and these policies specifically address opinions from questionable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'll again point out that Scoobydunk's interpretation of QS policy and his assessment of Breitbart are disputed and fringe (including the bizarre "conflict of interest" claim). Even Scoobydunk doesn't apply his professed policy interpretation to the other sources in this article. VictorD7 (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scoobydunk with all due respect, your response was just way too long to digest. I'll just say this - this looks like an absolutely terrible film so I can understand it is necessary to proceed carefully in attaching any reviewer's name to a positive review for this beast as it would instantly discredit the reviewer. Still, I believe a standard of caution and prudence has been met. DocumentError (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My response is but mere fraction of the length of WP policies regarding the appropriate use of sources. So I'd take this opportunity to familiarize yourself with my response which will save you the trouble having to "digest" pages upon pages of policies surrounding reliability and verifiability.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

It seems clear to me there's a consensus that Breitbart is RS in this context, based on 8 explicit "yes"/"acceptable"/"reliable" votes to 3 explicit "no"/"unacceptable" votes and the argument weights, but I'll post a request to have an uninvolved party close. VictorD7 (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VictorD7 , I saw your request for closure at the request for closure noticeboard and came here to initiate the close. By my count, after a one-month discussion in which all points and counter-points have been answered by each side, 8 editors either ambiguously or unambiguously support inclusion, 4 either ambiguously or unambiguously oppose inclusion. I believe that is close, but not quite, a consensus, so don't feel I can initiate the closure. That said, I will make a !vote of my own to help steer toward consensus. This may, or may not, push it over the edge. DocumentError (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)'[reply]
Voting does not equal consensus. The arguments, policies, and evidence must be evaluated and addressed in full to reach a consensus. Merely asserting that WP:QS doesn't apply to opinion pieces doesn't make it true.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, voting does not equal consensus. That's why I didn't close it. But consensus is also not judged by the opinion of the closer. Consensus is determined by an evaluation of the sum of opinions expressed juxtaposed against the relative acceptability the participants have expressed in the topic. At this time I do believe there is a consensus, but since I've now opined in the discussion, can't close it. DocumentError (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

additional comments

Imho the survey above misses the point. Movie reviews are primarily included not for factual reporting but to describe "reputable"/"established"/"influential"/"relevant" opinions on a movie. So the question that need to be answered here is not whether a breitbart article is reliable but whether it is relevant from a movie review/criticism point of view. For example the opinions of (regular) of critics of large mainstream newspapers, mainstrean news, moview review shows on TV, film journals and film scholars would be considered relevant.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Certainly the review is a reliable source for what the reviewer said. That does not mean we should present this writer's opinions in articles about the hundreds of articles that he has reviewed. The real issue is weight. TFD (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Toto's credentials as a well established professional critic are outlined in the above discussion, so his view is "relevant" by any reasonable, honest measure. Since the argument used to oppose his review's inclusion was a sourcing policy one, the above RFC establishing a consensus rejecting that argument was very much on point. VictorD7 (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were 24 reviews posted to Rotten Tomatoes (22 rotten, 2 fresh).[27] Of these 9 were "top critics" and all rated it as rotten. Christian Toto, who is not considered a top critic wrote a review that was not posted. AFAIK there could be dozens of other reviewers who wrote about this film. Why do you think we should include Toto's review? WP:WEIGHT says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Just saying that the film had an 8% fresh rating gives sufficient weight to the tiny minority of people who bothered to review the film and actually said they liked it. TFD (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The mentioned/cited critics should be representative for reviews overall and the most important in doubt. Toto is neither hence there is no requirement to mention him. At best there is a weak argument to include him as notable differing opinion, but imho that is rather weak argument and up to editorial discretion (allowing to use or not to use him).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Kmhkmh's initial post, consensus has determined that Breitbart and Toto are RS in this context. Period. Despite TFD's confused opening agreement above, his "weight comment" has almost nothing to do with the post it replied to. As a professional critic Toto is part of the weight we're supposed to assess. The weight issue wouldn't focus on Breitbart or Toto per se, but on whether this particular opinion is widely held enough to merit coverage. The weight issue has already been decided. There is a talk page consensus that a positive review quote is warranted. Indeed for a long time the section only had one quote, a negative one. The addition of several other negative quotes were allowed as part of the compromise consensus supporting the inclusion of a positive one, but the positive end of the consensus had yet to be fulfilled until now. Toto is the most prominent reviewer to positively review the film, which is why his review belongs in the article. The claims in TFD's latest post have mostly already been dealt with in discussions on this page. I'll add that film article guidelines explicitly state there is a consensus against using "Top Critics" scores. While basic RT or MC aggregations are allowed (and included at the beginning of the section), we aren't bound by them. As was explained to TFD already, RT doesn't count every significant review for every movie. That the site does see Toto as significant is demonstrated by the fact that they have cited over 600 of his reviews. Most of the other critics quoted in the section aren't "top critics" either, and have been quoted fewer times than Toto. This particular review was quoted in other media outlets, however (e.g. one of the positive reviews quoted by the New Orleans Times Picayune). Such citations aren't necessary given Breitbart and Toto's general prominence, but they underscore the basis for us covering his view.
Since this is a conservative documentary and the reactions have broken down along party lines, including a conservative reviewer is even more vital than usual to attain the "reasonable balance" called for by guidelines, and there's no good reason to censor out the conservative perspective here.VictorD7 (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "consensus has determined that Breitbart and Toto are RS in this context", you are correct. However, this consensus is not a mandate that this particular source must be used despite all other concerns and objections to inclusion. The sentence you cite about "reasonable balance" is followed by one which states "This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned)". This is precisely the scenario we have here since this is a film that has been almost universally panned. Gamaliel (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except it clearly is possible here, since multiple positive reviews have been produced, this one being the most prominent, and you're conveniently ignoring the unusual political dynamic involved with this film and the reaction to it that makes covering the other side even more vital than usual. I'll add that the historically rare A+ CinemaScore grade shows that the vast majority of people to watch the film thought it was great (and I don't know of any other political documentaries to receive such a score, conservative or liberal), so there would be something wrong with devoting a bloated paragraph stuffed only with negative quotes from the couple of dozen or so people who didn't like it while only giving the positive reaction a sentence. VictorD7 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the most prominent is Toto's is not bolstering your position that it represents a portion of the viewpoints that should be presented. In fact, quite the opposite. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Toto is extremely prominent, as the facts laid out all over this page show.VictorD7 (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to opposing views but giving weight according to how it is given in rs, such as RT. That would mean in this case that if we were to include 1 fresh review, we should include 9 rotten ones. TFD (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We were never giving "equal weight" to opposing ideas, as the skew was always very heavily in favor of negative quotes (all from leftists), so your comment is a non sequitur, but some coverage of the other side was necessary for the "reasonable balance" mandated by guidelines. And no, contrary to a recent edit summary (which was also incorrect for confusing sourcing concerns with non critics not belonging in the critic section), there's no policy or guideline mandating that quotes precisely have any ratio, much less binding us to whatever an RT aggregation says (RT and MT have different numbers anyway). The point is to not give the impression of false equivalence among pro critics, and there was never any danger of that. Citing the aggregation itself avoids the false equivalence even if were to use one negative and one positive quote. The point is moot for now, since some leftist editors here would rather delete all the quotes than include a single positive one. Regardless, this discussion was worthwhile, if for no other reason than it produced a community consensus that Breitbart is RS in at least situations like this. Editors should feel free to cite its pro critic reviews where appropriate in other articles (and have probably already been doing so). VictorD7 (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've produced zero evidence that the film critics or their publications were all "leftists", nor have you demonstrated that the editor who removed the entire section with his or her second ever edit to this article a "leftist editor". These baseless charges are only evidence of a battleground mentality. The only overtly political critic and publication that you advocated for inclusion was a conservative one, so per NPOV those views should be presented alongside those of overtly liberal critics and publications, otherwise the article violates NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was referring to you, since you were the one who suggested the other editor "delete the entire quote soup" rather than just your laughably POV, childish, tit for tat attempted edit. You also falsely accused the other editor of making a "POV edit" in deleting your partisan bloggers who weren't film critics from the film critic section (Hint - remember that Toto is a pro film critic). Contrary to your false claim here, I actually quoted and sourced Peter S. calling himself an "avowed left-wing liberal", and have pointed out how every negative review I've read (and certainly every one posted here) attacks D'Souza's politics, often in insipid and sophomoric ways. None of them actually refute anything he says, and many misharacterize what the film says, either because they're outright lying or they totally missed his point (that also applies to that young Salon.com girl and other partisan bloggers you and scooby quoted; e.g. I didn't notice the film mentioning D'Souza's "affair", despite one of the snarky HuffPo bloggers' claims). Hopefully you aren't going to deny being a leftist editor. Don't get me wrong, that would be pretty funny, but it's probably an unnecessary rabbit hole for us to get started down at this point, especially if the article stabilizes somewhat around its current form, the tags can be removed, and people can move on. VictorD7 (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The openness of the hostility in your response is a refreshing change from your farcical insistence that you have been engaging in "patient, reasoned argumentation". Gamaliel (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's exactly what I've done. Since your posting here has brimmed with hostility since you arrived, however, your hilarious hypocrisy is noted. VictorD7 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For added hilarity and accuracy, I imagined you saying this stamping your feet. Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like projection. VictorD7 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your anger is largely because other editors are enforcing policy. For example, you are demanding the ability to WP:SYN info together to create an argument about a reviewer being a "liberal". That is WP:OR rather you like it or not. Casprings (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not angry, I just described what happened. In fact I was happy because I thought maybe we had finally found a workable long term compromise solution here - eliminating all quotes. And no, Casprings, SYN and OR don't apply to evaluations done on Talk Pages. We're supposed to assess sources. You're the one still confused about policy. On that note, since you were the one who initiated much of this by claiming that Breitbart is not RS, linking to a couple of past discussions on other pages with only a few participants that established no consensus (and if anything leaned toward contradicting you), and starting multiple inconclusive noticeboard discussions, you might be interested to note that the heavily participated in RFC above establishes that Breitbart is RS for at least its own attributed opinion, particularly in regard to its pro film critics' reviews in movie articles. Being an honest, neutral editor, I'm sure you'll remember to cite and link back to this community consensus if the issue comes up again elsewhere. VictorD7 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic critics

For all this heated discussion about the relative importance Rotten Tomatoes does or does not place on Christian Toto, note that Toto's review of America does not appear on Rotten Tomatoes. Here are the critics whose reviews of America actually do appear on RT and on Metacritic. If you are to argue that RT's metrics make Toto important, then you also have to justify why you want to include Toto instead of all these other critics, some of whom have similar or better metrics. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Gabe Toro The Playlist

Joe McGovern Entertainment Weekly Top Critic

James Rocchi TheWrap Top Critic

Kam Williams Baret News

Renee Schonfeld Common Sense Media

Teddy Durgin Screen It!

Matt Prigge Metro

Louis Black Austin Chronicle

Christopher Campbell Nonfics

Dan Lybarger Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Sean Means Salt Lake Tribune

Rafer Guzman Newsday Top Critic

David Ehrlich AV Club Top Critic

Alan Scherstuhl Village Voice Top Critic

Martin Tsai Los Angeles Times Top Critic

Bill Goodykoontz Arizona Republic Top Critic

Jonathan W. Hickman Daily Film Fix

Peter Sobczynski RogerEbert.com

Duane Dudek Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Roger Moore McClatchy-Tribune News Service

Mark Jenkins Washington Post Top Critic

Rob Humanick Slant Magazine

Avi Offer NYC Movie Guru

Joe Leydon Variety Top Critic IconTop Critic

---


Variety Joe Leydon

Arizona Republic Bill Goodykoontz

Movieline Christopher Campbell

Philadelphia Inquirer Steven Rea

The New York Times Andy Webster

McClatchy-Tribune News Service Roger Moore

Washington Post Michael O'Sullivan

Time Richard Corliss

Boxoffice Magazine Phil Contrino

The Hollywood Reporter Stephen Farber

Boston Globe Mark Feeney

Salon.com Andrew O'Hehir

Village Voice Alan Scherstuhl

Entertainment Weekly Owen Gleiberman


Since you've already rejected Offer's review (listed above), adding in a later section that you "don't believe the inclusion of Offer's review in RT confers on it any particular notability or significance", you're really the wrong person to start this section. RT is only being cited regarding Toto as a small part of the mountain of evidence establishing his credentials as a noteworthy critic, and more importantly establishing that multiple media outlets see Breitbart is an RS for Toto's words. RT doesn't cite every noteworthy review for every film, so its absence for this particular movie proves nothing, but Toto's review for this film has been cited in other media (as posted above). Your Offer section started by saying, "I don't oppose including a positive review from a movie reviewer, but it should be an established one. Is Avi Offer an established critic?" You went on to conclude he isn't based on your opinion that his website looked amateurish. Well, Toto undeniably is an established critic who has worked for multiple major media outlets with national reach. Of course the RFC above isn't about weight, but simply whether Breitbart (or the Big Hollywood subsection of Breitbart) is an RS in this context, and on that score your comment on Offer is appropriate here: "Obviously he doesn't need to be a reliable source, since this is just an opinion we're talking about." - Gamaliel Obviously indeed. VictorD7 (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, I don't believe RT's metrics should override Wikipedia's. But if editors are going to discuss RT's metrics in depth, then they should also consider the fact that Toto's review was not included in RT while all these others were. Toto may be an established critic, and certainly appears to be more established than Offer. If Toto's review, or for that matter Offer's review, appeared in a reputable, mainstream publication I would have no objection to inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The argument was that Toto's review was notable because his reviews were carried in RT. But RT no longer carries them, so the argument fails. TFD (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
False on multiple levels. RT does still "carry" Toto's reviews (certainly no proof otherwise has been presented), and still lists him as a "Tomatometer Approved" critic. Regardless, the argument is that Breitbart is an RS for its own attributed opinions, which your earlier quote on Offer I provided above shows you don't dispute. Also, your new RT based argument against Toto contradicts your earlier argument against RT's relevance when you were trying to justify excluding Offer, whose review of this film RT does cite. And Toto's review of this film is cited (not published, but cited and quoted) by the New Orleans Times Picayune, a reputable news source, as I've shown (not that such coverage is necessary).
The bottom line is that Toto is a well established professional film critic writing for a very popular, high traffic news/opinion site. Your anti-Offer section only said you wanted to include a quote from an "established" critic, and you outright said even reviews posted on the personal blogs of such critics would be acceptable: "You're right, we can cite personal blogs for personal opinions when appropriate, but I don't believe it is appropriate to cite a non-notable opinion." - Gamaliel Clearly Toto is at least as "notable" as the guys currently quoted in the section. VictorD7 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Can" does not mean "should", and in this particular case, we should not, for reasons we've gone over at length. Even if I accept that Toto is more notable than every single person on the above list, that doesn't change the Breitbart issue. We can choose from any number of established critics writing for established outlets. You want me to change my opinion, give me a reason that we should pick that one in particular. Gamaliel (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only pertinent "Breitbart issue" is whether we can consider the site an authentic source for Toto's words, which clearly we can. The review quote was allegedly deleted on sourcing grounds, not because of the quote's content or any weight issue. VictorD7 (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the overly narrow RFC, perhaps that is the only pertinent issue, but in editing the article we are obligated to consider all issues. Gamaliel (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That allegedly "overly narrow" topic was the only rationale given for deleting the quote, so it merited the above discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although they list him as an approved critic, the fact is they have not used his columns since May 9, 2014, or 4 months ago, since shortly after he joined Breitbart. He remains on the list because his columns were used in the past for calculating RT scores. Similarly, Roger Ebert, who died April 4, 2013, is still on the list. The important issue is weight - we do not want to imply that critics say any merit in this film which was universally panned. I would hate to have readers pay to watch this film based on a misleading portrayal of critical reaction in this article, Even people who agreed with D'Souza would likely be disappointed. TFD (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More factual falsehoods from you. Toto joined Breitbart years ago, and RT cites and links to about 70 of his Breitbart ("Big Hollywood") reviews stretching to at least mid 2012. It also cites some self published Toto reviews from his personal blog "What Would Toto Watch?". Sometimes several published the same day are counted, and at other times there are gaps of several months. You've provided absolutely no evidence to support your assumption that they've somehow dropped him. I proved above that RT doesn't count every review from its approved critics. RT has cited Breitbart at least hundreds of times for various critics though. You're also wrong about the reception. The largely negative pro critic reception is already well covered by this article, but the overall response by viewers has been overwhelmingly positive, as the historically rare A+ Cinemscore grade shows. America beat Michael Moore's most recent documentary to become the #6 highest grossing political documentary of all time. Every negative review I've seen has been written by a leftist, often spending more time attacking D'Souza personally or conservativism, Christianity, and/or the USA generally than commenting specifically on the movie, but that the pro critic response has been largely negative doesn't mean we shouldn't provide any positive quote, since there are pro critics who reviewed the film positively. Your concern here shouldn't be to dissuade people from watching the movie, and it's unfortunate that you just expressed such an agenda. The film MOS guidelines state that, "To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used." Past weight discussion here determined that adding a positive review, given the several negative ones already quoted, would be reasonable balance, and it's certainly possible to find positive reviews, as Toto demonstrates. Even Gamaliel said he doesn't oppose adding a positive review. While you're certainly free to challenge consensus by initiating a new weight discussion, that would seem superfluous until the simpler and completely different question of Breitbart's RS in this context is settled, a discussion above that you plunged headfirst into.VictorD7 (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A positive review from a reputable source, which was already added to the article by SRich. Given the lack of positive reviews from mainstream outlets, I'm beginning to think that including a positive review at all might be an UNDUE violation, just as over-representing climate deniers in science articles gives a skewed picture of the 97% scientific consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That 97% consensus claim has been debunked. Your arguments against Breitbart are unconvincing. Your primary argument is that you don't like it because it is a conservative site. I'll weigh against your long history of defending liberal sites. Seriously, I cannot believe that liberals are so against this movie that this issue has become such a contentious one. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to start calling you Scarecrow because you love the straw man so much. My primary argument is "unconvincing" because you have no idea what it is. I have to keep repeating it for you so much I should just create a template for it. For the umpteenth time, it has zero to do with its political orientation and everything to do with its lack of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by policy, the same reason I also oppose including reviews from Rush Limbaugh and Daily Kos. Gamaliel (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the personal attacks continue. Clearly the argument of a person that has no logical response. Considering your false analogy of the 97% climate myth and the double straw men of Rush and DK, I find it humorous to see you level that attack against me. You should really stop though, it is unbecoming of your position as an admin. Arzel (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arzel, you are providing an opinion piece by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute. Here's a link to an article by Mark Hoofnagle that debunks the debunking. I can find sources that debunk the moon-landing. The problem is we cannot dismiss a meta-analysis in a peer-reviewed journal based on what a columnist, even one who minored in atmospheric studies, says. TFD (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hogwash. That "positive" quote was warped into a mostly negative one, much to the frustration of Srich and other good faith editors here. Again, your own words: "Obviously he doesn't need to be a reliable source, since this is just an opinion we're talking about." -Gamaliel, (29 July) Guidelines state that "Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics". You earlier supported adding a positive quote in principle. Perhaps you felt you could do so while finding case by case excuses for deleting all the truly positive ones proposed, and are now finding that more difficult. Regardless, the question of which sources are RS logically precedes the evaluation of RS weight, and the Toto review was deleted on pure sourcing grounds. Toto is undeniably a professional critic, making him RS here per film guidelines. The next question is whether Breitbart can be considered an authentic source for his reviews. If that answer is "yes" (which it clearly should be), then would come the issue of due weight, which has already been decided but could be revisited. Of course, since Toto is the most prominent pro critic to positively review the film, opposing his review would essentially mean that one opposes adding any positive reviews, which would require some position reversals and would violate the spirit of the "reasonable balance" that guidelines call for to construct a neutral article. Using a conservative reviewer is even more important than usual given the film's political nature, and the overt, one sided political bias of the liberal reviewers already quoted. But first thing's first, the Breitbart/Toto sourcing issue must be cleared up. 20:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you felt you could do so while finding case by case excuses for deleting all the truly positive ones proposed. This shit is exactly why dealing with you is so unpleasant, because any attempt to collaborate or engage with you is met with a punch in the dick. When I said I would support a positive quote, I thought it was obvious to any sentient being that it also meant from a reasonably significant, mainstream, notable source. Instead I'm on the receiving end of months-long harangues about someone's low traffic blog and a partisan shit sewer. Fuck this noise, go argue with your mirror. Gamaliel (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's far more unpleasant to deal with a poster who refuses to address the glaring contradictions in his comments from section to section. A genuine collaboration would have seen this issue cordially resolved weeks ago. There's no policy prohibiting the properly attributed, subjective opinions of an alleged "partisan shit sewer" from being covered in a section dedicated to subjective opinions (as your own earlier quote agreed with), which is why I don't oppose The Huffington Post, rogerebert.com, THR, or The A.V. Club from being quoted on sourcing grounds. Of course, as one of the highest trafficked news sites in the world (per Alexa rankings), Breitbart is certainly a significant, notable source (and mainstream conservative), not that it needs to be for Toto's review to be quoted, since being a pro critic makes him RS per guidelines, as long as Breitbart can be considered RS for relaying his words. VictorD7 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contradiction, I've addressed the issue over and over and over again. Your response has been consistently WP:IDHT. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, my response has been patient, reasoned argumentation against a blatantly invalid argument and has now progressed to the next step of an RFC for wider community input. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on your statements' inconsistency, and whether your position amounts to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. VictorD7 (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just laughed outloud at the idea that you actually believe you have engaged in "patient, reasoned arugmentation", and it's extra hilarious because you just posted it above TFD's response to you accusing him of lying. I'm beginning to think you are some sort of performance art project. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More that we disagree on, but readers can decide for themselves. I'll only add here that I did not accuse TFD of "lying". I pointed out that he made factually false claims, which I corrected. VictorD7 (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VictorD7, In the British Parliament MPs are routinely expelled for accusing their colleagues of lying. It would be pleasant if you maintain the same degree of decorum, and keep in mind that verbal abuse is no substitute for facts and well-reasoned arguments.

Most people would not consider 2012 to be "years ago", although one might say "2 years ago." Your link shows that RT picked up Toto's Big Hollywood reviews from May 16, 2012 to May 9, 2014. Can you explain why they are no longer counting his reviews, other than that they have dropped him?

The film is not the 6th highest grossing documentary of all time, it stands about 16, just ahead of Moore's Capitalism. But so what?

It's easy to say that everyone who panned the movie was "left-wing" by defining the Left as anyone who did not like the movie. D'Souza's brand of "conservatism" reflects a fringe view that is ignored in reliable sources except by scholar who write about the fringes of the political views.

TFD (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse you of "lying", TFD, but of posting factual falsehoods, and I proceeded to prove my claim. There's more to clean up from your latest post. I said America is the 6th highest ranking political documentary (reread my post), and it is. I never defined "the left" as anyone who didn't like this film. I said I hadn't seen a negative review from anyone who wasn't a leftist. Read the reviews yourself. The negative ones all attack D'Souza's politics. And those politics are very mainstream conservative, not "fringe". Two years ago is "years" by definition, which is certainly more accurate than your misleading claim that RT hadn't used him since "shortly after he joined Breitbart". I already showed you above that RT doesn't count every review from its approved critics, and indeed can go several months between citations, so that doesn't prove anything. RT isn't the end all be all anyway, and we certainly aren't restricted to only quoting critics they do. That RT has cited Toto 665 times and Breitbart at least 287 times is only relevant in helping to establish that Toto is a professional critic and that other media outlets take Breitbart at face value as an authentic source for his (and others') reviews. You have yet to post a single argument on that score, which is the actual topic of the RFC you chose to participate in above.VictorD7 (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying, "I already showed you above that RT doesn't count every review from its approved critics," Well no you have not. You stated that they did not carry Andy Webster's review, but the reason they did not include it was that he did not write a review of the film - few critics did. And D'Souza's politics are not "mainstream conservative." They are never mentioned approvingly in mainstream academic writing and are most often mentioned in books and articles about fringe views. TFD (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't mentioned Andy Webster. Above I linked to several Toto reviews from before your cutoff date of May 9 that weren't quoted by RT either. That demonstrably didn't mean they had dropped him, since they proceeded to quote him on May 9. Your claims about D'Souza's politics are wrong and irrelevant. You keep dodging the actual issue of Breitbart's reliability in this context. VictorD7 (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they phased his columns out. I don't know. But their methodology is to use every column of every reviewer they use. Imagine a film got a 100% "fresh" because RT decided only to inlcude positive reviews. Also, it makes no sense to rail against the liberal media and the left-wing academic world, then claim that people like D'Souza are in the mainstream. If mainstream is a Marxist-Alinsky-anticolonialist conspiracy that D'Souza opposes, he is obviously not part of it. TFD (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe they didn't; at least now you admit you don't know. You've posted nothing supporting your claim about their methodology, which, btw, is certainly not scientific. D'Souza's views are firmly in the American mainstream (which isn't defined by the liberal media), and I don't know of any specific factual claims his film makes that have been disputed. That's all irrelevant though. You're still dodging the actual issue of Breitbart's reliability as a source for Toto's review.VictorD7 (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are the one who brought up RT as evidence of Toto's notability, you need to provide the methology they use, not me. If you do not know it, then you cannot use them as evidence of Toto's importance.
D'Souza's views are well outside the mainstream. You refer to the "liberal media" - that is the mainstream. Notice on page 145 of Obama's rage, D'Souza distinguishes between the "mainstream media" and the "conservative media." His example of the latter is Sean Hannity.[28] That show does even meet rs standards, except for the opinions expressed on it.
Asking whether Breitbart is rs for Toto's column is begging the question. As I worte above, "Any editor could write a review and post it on facebook and it would be a reliable source for what they said. The real issue is whether is notability."
TFD (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep ignoring what's been posted, causing people to repeat themselves. Again, RT was cited as one piece of a mountain of evidence proving that Toto is a professional film critic. While your various claims about RT's methodology are completely unsupported and in some cases have been proved false, in the above section Dr Fleischman did copy paste RT's methodology and review process regarding critic approval (what's relevant here). Other evidence, like Toto working as a critic for the Washington Times for years, being cited by other media sources, and belonging to major professional critic organizations was also cited. There should be no doubt whatsoever among good faith editors that Toto is an established, professional critic. That alone makes him RS per film guidelines as I quoted a few paragraphs above. As to his "notability", by which here you presumably mean his prominence, being the feature film critic for widely read publications like the Washington Times and Breitbart (both publications themselves are extremely notable) make him at least as notable as the critics already quoted in the section, and probably more so. Your comments on D'Souza are both incorrect and irrelevant. The "media" doesn't determine which political views are mainstream. If they did, a Republican would never win a national election. Getting back on topic, does your next to last sentence mean that you do accept Breitbart as an RS for Toto's words? VictorD7 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not being Republican or Democrat that makes one mainstream, it is one's opinions. For example, birtherism, 9/11 truth, death panels, young earth creationism, and climate change denial are all views popular with some Republicans but that does not elevate them to mainstream views. You still have not explained the irony of someone claiming that mainstream views are lies, yet your claiming that is a mainstream view. It is a logical impossibility: TFD (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're still dodging the central issue here. Do you accept that Breitbart is RS for Toto's review? As for your post, leaving aside the fact that some things (like 9/11 conspiracy theories) are far more popular with Democrats, you haven't pointed to anything D'Souza states in the film (or even happens to believe) that's supposedly "fringe", or explained the relevance to this conversation even if you could. You're also conflating certain mainstream views, like anthropogenic climate change skepticism, espoused by many scientists, with the truly fringe. Your final two sentences continue to mistakenly conflate the "mainstream" (or "old", or "liberal") media with political views that are societally mainstream, so your "logical" claim is based on a false premise. D'Souza criticizes the "mainstream" political bias of certain niches, and his views are certainly mainstream on the political spectrum. VictorD7 (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to argue that "anthropogenic climate change skepticism, espoused by many scientists" is a mainstream view, then we are not going to get anywhere. Your view of what is mainstream differs from what policy says and how it is interpreted. Instead of arguing across numerous articles that fringe views are mainstream, you should take your arguments to discussions of policies. (The 9/11 truth movement is mostly extreme right Republicans.) TFD (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 9/11 "truth" movement was mostly liberal Democrats (with a few libertarians), and who defines the "mainstream" varies from topic to topic. For example, for general political views the mainstream is not defined by the media's own political preferences. None of that is relevant to this discussion though. Your posting here has been almost entirely obfuscatory and diversionary. If you continue to refuse to address the topic actually under discussion then your comments will merit no further response.VictorD7 (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this will finally be the blissful silence we have all been looking forward to. Gamaliel (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews - starting from scratch

Per WP:RTMC: "The "Top Critics" at Rotten Tomatoes and the critics at Metacritic are generally considered reliable and authoritative sources and are ideal for sampling." I took the lists of the RT "Top Critics" and the Metacritic critics for this film and found six critics who were cited in both places. I selected four of the six and used only the pull quotes that were used by RT and Metacritic (in some cases, by both) and excerpted no other material from their reviews. I thought six was too many, and all six were unfavorable reviews anyway. I can't think of a way to make the selection process any more objective than this. It leaves out Christian Toto, but it also leaves out that evil liberal plotter Peter Sobczynski that Victor has such a seething hatred for, so it's a wash. Gamaliel (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quotemining makes terrible articles. POV quotemining makes bad articles worse. Section was cut down to simple facts without quotes or ideological POVs. Every quote you chose seemed to be based on the critics ideological review rather than a critical assessment of the film itself. Are critics "fact-checkers" such that they can make sweeping statements about truthiness and be considered a reliable source? --DHeyward (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if you can summarize critical assessment of the film itself. "Reliance on dramatizations over interviews" was a criticism of the style and is valid film critic area of expertise. It's harder to make them into content experts, though, so facile and strawman are harder to stick. As an example, whether a film critic believed "Life of Pi" was true or not based on his personal experience with tigers might be in his review but it's not ripe for the WP article on the film. --DHeyward (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Cherry picked"? "POV quotemining"? These accusations make no sense given the methodology I used to include the quotes, which removed almost all human intervention and made the most representative selection possible of the "critical assessment". Your objections lie with the selections and decisions made by RT and Metacritic. When we had eight quotes, I can understand the objection of "quotesoup", but half that number is reasonable to include, which is why I only used four instead the six I could have. None is unreasonable. Including review excerpts is standard in film articles, and of all the editors who have discussed the matter here, so far you are the only editor to favor the opposite approach. Gamaliel (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overkill in quotes to show just how horrid the fake-umentary is is not really needed, and when people engage in making absolutely sure every reader knows how evil the film is simply negates the primary rules of Wikipedia - including the non-negotiable principle of "neutral point of view." At this point, we have the neat position where the only remotely positive review suggested for inclusion, which was specifically found to be reliably sourced in the RfC above, is not mentioned at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV requires fair and proportional representation. The overall critical assessment is poor, and the article should reflect that. Claiming that quotes which reflect the critical assessment violate NPOV turns NPOV on its head. Gamaliel (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- since I edited without a single favourable review in the edit, that would seem a reasonable percentage. Might you tell me how I could get to over 100% negative with a straight face? I would rather think 100% is an upper bound mathematically - can you get higher? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I could just as easily say you violated NPOV by reducing the negative representation by 50%. Gamaliel (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you will read the Joseph Widney article which I reduced in size by 160,000 bytes, or about 80%, thus making it a "Good Article". Having a hundred negative reviews against zero positive reviews is not "more neutral" than having two negative major reviews and zero positive reviews. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In hopes of finding common ground regarding your concerns while keeping this article in line with other film articles, I'm going to try to reduce the length of the quotes instead of their number. Gamaliel (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the unusual circumstances surrounding this film and the politicized reception, it's clear that linking directly to any review will be a poison pill inviting further expansion. If you add negative quotes I will restore a positive one, probably the Breitbart review, since among all reviews it has by far the most endorsement on this page. There is no policy mandating a certain ratio of positive to negative quotes. That most pro critics panned the film (not to be confused with the total reception, which was more positive than negative) is made clear by the section leading off with the aggregation scores, avoiding any danger of a false equivalence. The purpose of the quotes would not be to precisely represent weight in character space, but provide coverage of the salient, differing points of view. We don't need several quotes essentially repeating themselves.
Your op here links to a non binding essay someone wrote, and even it says "Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, are considered reliable sources, but information from them should be used in proper context and have some limitations"....and "critical reception should also benefit from other reliable sources". The actual film guidelines only really mention Top Critics to say "There is a consensus against using the "Top Critics" scores at Rotten Tomatoes based on several concerns:". By contrast, total RT and MC aggregations are listed as "citable", but there's nothing mandating we use them, much less restrict ourselves to the sample of critics they happen to choose for a particular movie. Guidelines do say that "Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited." Nothing about them having to come from RT, much less RT's "Top Critics". We're also instructed to provide a "reasonable balance" of quotes, but we aren't required to provide quotes at all, especially given the unusual issues at play here. Guidelines call on us to use "best judgment", flexible instruction implying adaptability to differing circumstances. Any honest editor will admit that critical reception to this movie has at least largely broken down along political lines, so best judgment cautions us to be wary about only quoting from one side. VictorD7 (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel. Again with the Daily Kos source? really? You know better than that. Arzel (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the problem with this source? If this is a political documentary, it makes sense to include and attribute political commentary. The key is to structure that commentary per WP:STRUCTURE. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC established that fringe political websites like Brietbart and Daily Kos are allowable sources to reference their own reviews. Gamaliel (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually the RFC established that the news/opinion site Breitbart and its pro film reviewer Christian Toto are RS here. It said nothing about non pro film critics on truly fringe liberal group blogs. That said, I agree with Erik that expanded political commentary is appropriate for an explicitly political film, including commentary about the reception itself (which is common, as I've shown before), as long as we fully cover both sides, and you don't try to engage in one sided censorship. VictorD7 (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One-sided censorship? Like when you deleted only the liberal reviews? I do so enjoy patient reasoned argumentation like this from you, it reminds me of visiting the monkey cage. Gamaliel (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that never happened, lol. You seem particularly upset today, Gamaliel. What's the matter? VictorD7 (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we have always been at war with Eastasia. Gamaliel (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only deleted the quotes from non-critics; all such quotes from non-liberals had already been dropped down the memory hole (deleted), so there were only liberal ones left to delete (you left out what a late great radio host might call the rest of the story). Now that there's sentiment for expanding the Reception section beyond pro film critics, both perspectives are represented. VictorD7 (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we all please focus on the content? I agree with the conclusion of the RFC because we are dealing with statements of opinion here (see WP:RSOPINION), and the conclusion should extend to similar sources on the other end of the political spectrum. If sources are notable (Wikipedia's notability standards can be one rule of thumb), then opinions published by them can be noteworthy. I am fine with including and attributing both conservative and liberal statements in this article, though I would prefer to paraphrase where possible to get away from any slang that may be used. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds acceptable to me, Erik, but you see with this revert by Gamaliel the kind of intractable, one sided, POV censorship I'm talking about having to deal with. He deleted almost all the conservative commentary while leaving the liberal pundit attacks. Gamaliel even violated 3RR to do it, his edit summary containing nothing but what I surmise is his family photo album (set to some touching audio). Maybe he miscounted his reverts, so I politely notified him on his talk page. Regardless, clearly the current page grossly violates NPOV. I'll add that the two commentators he completely deleted, John Fund and Ben Shapiro, are both notable (along with their publications, of course), while none of the leftist pundits he put into the article are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, and it looks like only one pro film critic is. VictorD7 (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After all that you've put up with, and yet you still manage to engage in patient reasoned argumentation. Your talents are wasted on Wikipedia, truly. Have you considered bringing your brand of patient reasoned argumentation to a struggling inner city school? Within six months they will all be getting 5s on the AP Calculus exam. Gamaliel (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, sometimes my patience astonishes even me. I don't spend that much time on Wikipedia though.VictorD7 (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New tags

One is supposed to post talk page rationales when they add things like NPOV tags, as I did. For the record, since there seems to be some confusion, the conservative perspective is not a "minority political view" as it was erroneously called in a recent edit summary. RT style aggregations are only meaningful from a weight standpoint when assessing pro film critics' views. When the scope of coverage is expanded beyond that narrow set, as it appropriately has been here given the film's political nature, the negative skew goes out the window. There is a lot of positive material about this movie, especially from conservative commentators.VictorD7 (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do not find the tags necessary. I think that there could be more copy-editing, especially not to quote directly so much, but otherwise, the grouping of content is fine. However, I think at least in the "Political commentary" section, we should attribute the political stances of the sources attributed. If these sources' Wikipedia articles open with the political slant, we should state them here so readers unfamiliar with the sources don't have to go to the articles to find that out. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily oppose tagging the pundits "conservative" and "liberal", as long as we're even handed, though I'm not sure how necessary it is. Regarding the quotes, I think allowing full coverage of a thought is more important than worrying too much about character length. Sometimes that can be done easily with a sentence fragment, especially when one is essentially just name calling, but other times it might require a sentence or a sentence and a half. I think right now the combined negative quotes sufficiently cover that perspective, which is given more space, number of reviews, and emphasis (especially leading off with the aggregations) in the pro critic section, with the positive quote being slightly longer than the average negative quote (much smaller than the combined liberal quote paragraph) but needing more space to fully cover that view since it's the only positive quote used. VictorD7 (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've been taking here about this for months, you are well aware of the rationale. The section gives the longest quote to a conservative review, included solely because of its political viewpoint, because it would obviously be excluded by any objective methodology for selecting quotes based on the critical consensus. All the reviews from liberal publications were removed to another section. This is a biased presentation which gives undue weight to Toto's minority viewpoint. Gamaliel (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good point. The Daily Kos and Salon passages both state that the pieces are film reviews. These should be in the same camp as Breitbart. Media Matters for America, on the other hand, is not labeled a review and can stay in the "Political commentary" section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, being an established pro film critic is more than having one piece labeled "review" on a group blog. Toto's extensive credentials are laid out all over this page. So far I've seen no evidence that the Kos and Salon bloggers are critics. They don't even seem like major members of those blogs, much less people who have had reviews published by various outlets, have had their reviews cited and quoted by mainstream media, are members of professional critics organizations, etc., like Toto. If there's evidence to the contrary I'd be happy to see it. VictorD7 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with your premises. The Toto quote is only slightly the longest, because it's making a more complex point than tossing out a bunch of invective, and far shorter than the combined negative quotes. The pro critic weight skews negative, and our coverage clearly reflects that, especially with the extended RT/MC segment. There's no false equivalence. But, ideology aside, the positive view merits some coverage to achieve reasonable balance. Toto happens to be conservative, but all of the other publications and negative critics in the pro critic section are liberal. Everyone has their political views. What makes the liberal and conservative pundits in the other section different is that they aren't pro film critics. VictorD7 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wrap, Variety, and The A.V. Club are all entertainment publications, not political ones. Brietbart is an explicitly political publication so it should be coupled with reviews from explicitly political publications of different perspectives per NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no policy, guideline, or good reason to disregard the writers and only categorize by publication. Toto is an established pro film critic who used to write reviews for the Washington Times, and he'd be RS as a film critic even if we were using his personal blog as a source. Besides, Breitbart is a major news/opinion site and not the equivalent of group blogs like Kos and Salon. It happens to be conservative. So? The NY Times, The Wrap, and CNN all happen to be liberal. Policy explicitly states that bias doesn't disqualify sources from being used, and Breitbart's political leanings don't change the fact that Toto is a pro film critic who usually reviews non political movies. If you want to group all the critics and pundits together that would be one thing, but if we're making a distinction then Toto belongs with the pro critics. VictorD7 (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are singling out Toto because of his political orientation and the political orientation of his publication. You can't do that without presenting other political viewpoints, and you can't claim that every single one of dozens of non-political entertainment and general news publications and critics mentioned on this page as meeting the criteria for inclusion in that section are all "liberal". The reception section should be representative of the non-political consensus of film critics. if you want to introduce politics into that through Toto, then NPOV requires representing all political points of view. Gamaliel (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. I pushed for Toto's inclusion (assuming that's what you meant by "singling out") because it was a positive review, and that side needed at least some coverage for reasonable balance, per an earlier talk page agreement. First I supported other editors' attempts to include the RT cited positive review of Offer, who may be a liberal for all I know, but you rejected him because you didn't like the way his blog looked, saying you'd accept a positive review but that it should be from an "established critic" (I believe those were your exact words). Toto is a very established pro critic. Sure, having at least one conservative perspective when all the other pro critics quoted are attacking D'Souza's politics and conservatism in general (of course they're liberal, like most of the entertainment industry) is especially important in an article covering a political film, but that just strengthens the case. I'd support a positive quote anyway. Of course the liberal perspective, both critic and pundit, is well represented, and the mostly negative state of pro critic opinion has been covered all along. VictorD7 (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Months ago, I stated that I was willing to consider including Avi Offer if any editor could substantiate that he or his publication had any sort of audience or positive reputation or anything at all besides being on RT. You keep mentioning him, but you are unwilling to provide any of that evidence. I'm not singlehandedly keeping Offer out, I just raised my concerns on the talk page, and for that you've been sniping at me for months. You want Offer in? Provide evidence or develop a consensus for inclusion, otherwise WP:DROPTHESTICK. In regards to critics in general, "of course they're liberal, like most of the entertainment industry" is your personal opinion, not substantiated by policy or evidence or supported by consensus (and irrelevant anyway since they are writing for non-political general entertainment and news publications), so that personal opinion should not be guiding article content. Gamaliel (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to get Offer in now. I only mentioned him to refute the notion that I'm only supporting Toto because he leans conservative. I support Toto's inclusion because he's the most prominent pro critic to positively review the film, and therefore the best choice to represent the positive critic sentiment. That he represents an ideological perspective otherwise lacking in the section is just a bonus. Those other outlets may be narrower in focus, but they're no more "non-political" than Breitbart is. Regardless, our respective assessments of their politics is secondary. The bottom line is that they could all be conservative, liberal, or non-political, and it wouldn't change the fact that Toto is an "established", well credentialed, pro film critic, so if we're creating a pro critic section he belongs in it. Speaking of WP:DROPTHESTICK, we just had months of debate culminating in an RFC that didn't go your way. At some point maybe you should step back and let this Toto/Breitbart thing go. Including that one quote can't possibly cause you this much pain. VictorD7 (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here I was thinking you were finally trying to be mature about this, but you just couldn't stop yourself from including more of that patient reasoned argumentation that we all enjoy. Gamaliel (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope you're not complaining about me commenting on the WP:DROPTHESTICK concept you raised.VictorD7 (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, do you think your parting shot is really an example of patient reasoned argumentation? Do you think that it furthers this discussion and gets us towards resolution? Have you considered that this discussion has gone on for months not because of everyone else's behavior, but because of yours? Gamaliel (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to understand why this is such a big deal to you. It's a big deal to me because it represents the section's only positive quote, and because the sourcing rationale used to exclude it just because it came from Breitbart was, as another editor put it, "odious". It was important to establish a consensus that Breitbart is RS in situations like this; perfectly fine to use. That consensus being established, I'm obviously not going to walk away if that means the quote gets purged from a section still filled with negative quotes. But why is this so important to you? The quote itself is fairly innocuous, and all the section's other quotes are still negative. That said, you're obviously under no obligation to answer a personal question; you can tell me to screw off or just ignore it if you want to. But you can't ignore the fact that Toto is an established professional critic, while Kos's Falcone and Salon's Bruenig aren't.VictorD7 (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm just trying to understand why this is such a big deal to you." is not a response to the guestion of "Why are you acting like a jackass?" Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected your premise. VictorD7 (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The film has an 8% rating on RT amongst professional critics. That is an almost universally panned film. It would be inaccurate that a "well-balanced" article would include positive and negative review of the film, you would have to deliberately cherry pick good reviews because there appear to be so few of them. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could expand on quoting the negative reviews? We could quote The Washington Post since it is a very well-known periodical, as well as The Hollywood Reporter, which with Variety makes up the major film-related trade journals. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are enough positive reviews that even an article that only focused on pro film critics should include at least one to cover that perspective. But, of course, this being a political documentary, the set of views has been expanded beyond pro film critics, and the broader reception was far more positive.VictorD7 (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Four negative reviews along with the RT and MetaCritic cites stating that the reviews were overwhelmingly negative would appear to be quite sufficient. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most well-developed film articles have a good number of reviews. I understand that we don't want to repeat "it's bad" over and over, but the point of referencing individual critics is to expand on the particulars of the consensus. Basically answering the question of what elements worked or didn't work for the critic. I find it very shotgun-editing to just have a quoted sentence from each critic (and I admit I do that sometimes). Something like American Beauty (1999 film)#Critical reception weaves the critics appropriately. I don't know if we'd get to that FA level, but we should strive for it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is the ideal, but we can't even get to the point where we can agree what critics to include, much less figure out how to weave them together without accusations of cherry picking. Hell, all I did was cut and paste only the quotes used by both Metacritic and RT and I was accused of cherrypicking. I think first we have to get a stable article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Four seems like a reasonable number if we limit the section to non-political reviews. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CinemaScore

As MOS:FILM now outlines, audience response content is not required to be under critical response content. In addition, box office gross indicates how an audience responds to the film, and CinemaScore is another such indicator. It is commonplace to show the demographic breakdown with the CinemaScore grade. It shows what kind of audience the film attracts, like a Transformers film would attract young men. It is not "frivolous". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To show how relevant demographic information is, Entertainment Weekly reports here about who went to see Ouija last weekend. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VictorD7, a number of film articles include demographic breakdown as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one ever said it's "required", but I agree with Flyer22 on the MOS page that CinemaScore grades fit better under the Critical reception section because they're opinions about the movie rather than box office stats about sales or theater count, and there's no good reason to move it. The Guidelines' Critical response section already makes it clear that reception content isn't limited to pro film critics, stating..."Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited." The new compromise Audience Response section certainly doesn't mandate that CinemaScore polls appear in the box office section, as it states that "Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore, may be used and placed in the appropriate release or reception-based section, depending on the available context." Either is acceptable, and my opinion is that readers will tend to look at the BO/Release section for sales stats, skipping over that and looking at the Critical response section when searching for opinions, so a major opinion segment shouldn't be buried in the middle of a bunch of box office stats. It's also been the status quo on this article for months, and there's no consensus to change that.
Regarding the demographic breakdown, your search yielded 28 results (for perspective searching for "cinemascore" alone yields 239), and only some of those actually have demographic breakdowns. None are as detailed as what you posted, typically only featuring male/female ratios and sometimes limited age info (like percentage "over 25"). None mentioned race, except for Season of the Witch, which only mentioned it due to its unusually high "non-white" viewer percentage. None were political documentaries. I noticed no demographic breakdowns in any of the Michael Moore movies I scanned. When there is a demographic breakdown (typically male/female), it often appears on the BO/Release section, with the CinemaScore grade appearing separately in the Critical reception section. Usually there's no demographic breakdown at all and CinemaScore grades are presented as a single sentence, like in the Avengers or Godzilla Critical reception sections. Posting a demographic breakdown here, in a political documentary film article, especially with the racial/"over 55"/"religious" components, wittingly or not comes off as an attempt to marginalize the movie's audience and threatens to open a Pandora's Box right when the article was finally approaching a stable consensus after months of turmoil. The pictures of CinemaScore ballots I've seen don't even ask about race, so it's not even certain the demographics mentioned in that article are CinemaScore stats. Regardless, this article is better off without such skewed, special demographic treatment. VictorD7 (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, sometimes the demographic breakdown is provided with the CinemaScore, and sometimes it is not. I saw a search result somewhere that said sometimes the grade comes out first, then other details follow, so maybe some periodicals just report on the grade. I would support any film article, political documentary or otherwise, having a demographic breakdown. I'm not sure why you think the breakdown is marginalizing in effect. We are not marginalizing young men by saying they are the chief demographic to see the latest Transformers film, or young women for The Fault in Our Stars. Researching CinemaScore further, this says it has 33 demographic categories, so perhaps depending on the film, only the most relevant ones (like for Season of the Witch) are reported. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet no other documentary article I've seen has a demographic breakdown. Surely you can understand why singling out a conservative political documentary article that's been the subject of extremely contentious editing for months over neutrality issues, and is finally quieting down, to become the first to have a demographic breakdown, much less one emphasizing stereotypes about age, race, and religion, is less than ideal. It would smack of biased, unfair treatment. I'm sure most political doc. audiences skew older and white, including Moore movies (maybe less religious). In fact most films period likely skew white, which is why the only racial mention I noticed in your search results was because a high non-white percentage was deemed noteworthy. A political documentary appealing to an older, whiter audience isn't noteworthy. If you're serious about adding such material to film articles though, there must be better places to start. VictorD7 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the passage concerning aggregate scores to show a more detailed breakdown. I was doing the same for audiences as detailed by a reliable source. Blockbuster films tend to have detailed articles which include such breakdowns (you should see WikiProject Film's comic book films task force), so I'm not surprised that articles about non-blockbuster films, getting less attention, lack this detail. This does not mean breakdowns are not out there. Son of God has a breakdown here, and Heaven is for Real has a breakdown here. I'll restore the gender/age passage since that is not controversial. I posted a notice at WT:FILM about this discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now, with restoring the uncontroversial gender/age sentence, the CinemaScore passage is even less qualified to be under a section about how critics responded to the film. Let's please merge that back into the above section as the more pertinent location. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "over 55" segment is uncalled for (perhaps as evidenced by the use of "while"), and something I don't remember seeing in any other article, much less a political documentary article. That aside, even if we agreed to make this the first political documentary to have a demographic breakdown for some reason, there's no reason we couldn't put it in the Release section while leaving the opinion segment in the opinion section where it properly belongs, as a high percentage of the relatively few articles with demographic breakdowns do. Even those that do keep the demographic breakdown with the CinemaScore grade often place them both in the Critical reception section. VictorD7 (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we had pulled demographics from CinemaScore, yes, doing so would be inappropriate. but our source did the noticing and found it worth noting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree we should include the CinemaScore age/gender breakdown passage? Nothing wrong with it, despite Victor's claim that it should not be part of an article about a political documentary? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In general Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_response we dont care what the audience thinks about a film anyway, so my preference would be to remove all the CinemaScore reference from the page. However, if we are going to include information about it being liked, we should identify who is liking it when the source has noted it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something appears in an article outside of Wikipedia doesn't mean we have to put it in this article. Do you really want to start blowing the page back up again? VictorD7 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you say blowing the page back up, do you mean adding content or continuing with discussions? I do not see the problem with either. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean a bunch of content from various perspectives being added, deleted, restored, deleted, and restored again, replications of the pages of arguments that have already taken place here and were just winding down, restoration of the recently deleted NPOV tags, and general chaos and disruption. This article is best treated as a basic, vanilla, neutral encyclopedia piece, rather than a propaganda forum for partisan cheap shots or skewed and unusual subject treatment like slapping the "old and white" label on the audience when no other political documentary or film of any kind gets that treatment as far as I can tell. If you want to expand things, there are sources and segments we can use to provide context by discussing how historically rare an A+ CinemaScore grade is, commenting on the obvious political dynamic at play in the reception (like most film critics being left wing), and producing tit for tat talking points on once present tangents that have now been deleted in entirety, among other things. Every Wikipedia article only contains a tiny fraction of the material sources have written about it. VictorD7 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:34, November 4, 2014‎ (UTC)
It is completely possible to have a more full-fledged article about this film. It is basic and vanilla, but it is currently not neutral because there is nothing to be neutral about. Being neutral means explaining the sides, fairly and without bias. This involves structuring and attributing. We can improve the article further. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 04:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no policy forbidding it and it comes from a reliable source, it should be included. It is a political film and understanding demographics is an important part of understanding politics. It would be useful and objective information for this article. I would hardly consider its inclusion to be superfluous or to be "blowing up the article". -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting TheWrap's passage about the CinemaScore grade and the demographics behind it as follows: "Audiences loved the film, giving it a rare 'A+' CinemaScore, and 92 percent gave it a 'definite recommend” in exit polls. Conservative icons like radio host Rush Limbaugh promoted the film prior to its opening, and 'America' connected with its core. The audience was split nearly evenly in terms of gender but skewed older, with 69 percent over the age of 55. They were mainly Caucasian (93 percent) and 82 percent of those polled described themselves as 'very or somewhat religious.'" I think it is relevant to mention the grade and its rarity, the "definite recommend", and the demographic breakdown. The last part makes better sense to include now that the "Marketing" section details a religious focus. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no reason for this to become the first political documentary to have its audience demographically broken down in a Wikipedia article, including by race and "over 55". VictorD7 (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Were it just a run of the mill cinemascore-rated film, I would agree, but its rare A+ rating justifies the extra scrutiny. Gamaliel (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's "scrutiny"? Interesting word choice. Of course that doesn't logically follow. VictorD7 (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

References to consider using. I am thinking about how we could cover different sub-topics under "Political commentary" in a way that folds debates into the narrative, such as what different commentators have to say about the treatment of Zinn. This may mean the same source would be repeated across sub-topics, depending on what they cover. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose adding more political commentary, but for the record (in case anyone doesn't know), Nicole Hemmer is a professional conservative basher who thinks the notion of a liberal media was a myth invented by the right, and Tamny is a Libertarian with a perceived interest in relentlessly pushing a "a pox on both parties" theme, just so we're clear on where they're coming from politically. Both those columns are filled with straw man arguments and claims about the movie that simply aren't true, and they both dramatically understate what's going on at modern universities (Tamny in particular sounds totally out of touch), including how widespread Zinn's book is used as a textbook, not that D'Souza ever claimed Zinn was the only leftist historian, but rather one of the prominent ones meriting special focus. The movie isn't about praising Republicans, D'Souza explicitly rejects the "conspiracy theory" label in interviews, and nowhere does he say anything remotely approaching the "slavery wasn't that bad" characterization found in some liberal columns about the film (quite the opposite). If specifics from these pieces are added, as opposed to quotes describing the movie generally, then we'd probably need to add counterpoints on those topics from other sources, particularly if D'Souza is explicitly denying something (like the "conspiracy theory" angle). VictorD7 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The notion of a liberal media was in fact a myth invented by the right. --NE2 03:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<INSERT>No, that's your opinion, and not a well founded one. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Watch out, he's going to argue about this with you for the next six months. Gamaliel (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this point you're just trolling. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who Nicole Hemmer is, but US News and World Report is a reliable source by Wikpedia standards and I don't see why we should exclude it. Gamaliel (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<INSERT>Since this was a reply to me, I'll point out that I didn't say we should exclude it or say anything about RS standards. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I listed that and Forbes as major publications. We need to be careful about involving our personal perspectives. We need to focus on commentary as it relates to the film. Any further, what we can do is provide the necessary links so readers can read about certain political topics in a wider scope. For example, we do not link to A People's History of the United States, though it is mentioned. There are a lot of good links in the "Synopsis" section, but they may be worth repeating in the "Political commentary" section in the context of independent scrutiny (in the sense of being apart from the filmmakers) from various political stances. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was clarifying those authors' political perspectives, which is relevant for us to do on a Talk Page. I believe you were the one who went so far as to suggest that we add labels like "conservative" and "liberal" to commentators in the article. I'm not sure going that far is necessary, though I wouldn't oppose it either. Explicitly stated or not, I do think editors should have a handle on commentators' ideologies.VictorD7 (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to the issue under discussion here. It's a BLP violation in itself for you to compare Breitbart to others whom you denigrate. Moreover as I stated above, such comparisons are entirely irrelevant to the current issue. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you posted in the wrong section. No one but you mentioned "Breitbart" here, and my comments were on point. It's also hard to tell if you're serious, but, for the record, it is certainly not a "BLP violation in itself" to compare sources with each other in talk page discussions on policy. VictorD7 (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shapiro quote

Regarding this, I am fine with including it per WP:BIASED ("Common sources of bias include political... beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context") and WP:SUBSTANTIATE ("Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution"). Per WP:SUBSTANTIATE, we can state the nature of Breitbart.com (as well as the other politically slanted sources) when using them in this article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting further, I've seen two instances where the Shapiro quote was removed via dubious rationale. One revert cited WP:QS & WP:SPS and the other cited WP:BLP. None of these guidelines applies. Breitbart is certainly not SPS, so that does not apply. It might be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT source, but it not being used for factual assertions so QS does not apply. Finally, Shapiro does not refer to any particular people so I cannot see how BLP would apply. (Consider an extension of the BLP argument – the film reviewer summary webpages actually refer to particular reviewers, but these sources don't violate BLP.) Whether editors like or dislike Breitbart should not impact editing decisions. The Shapiro comment is WP:NOTEWORTHY and proper for inclusion. – S. Rich (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'm surprised you've chosen to cast aspersions on the motives of other editors here. We have a quote from an extremely poor source with a negative reputation in the required areas or reliablity and factchecking, written by a known fabulist (google "Friends of Hamas" for Shaprio's "reliability" regarding the individuals he opines about, I won't repeat his libel here) who is casting aspersions on the motives of individuals cited in the article. Any one of those things should make a conscientious editor think twice about including this material at all, much less edit war to include the material without consensus or discussion in violation of WP:BRD. Gamaliel (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Srich, you should read SPS because it applies to both self published sources and questionable sources. So it does apply because Breitbart.com is a questionable by multiple metrics defined by WP:QS. Furthermore, nothing in WP:QS or WP:Aboutself limits the policies to statements of "fact". They apply to all claims made by questionable sources and that includes opinions. The very nature of the word "contentious" is something that isn't verifiable as fact, and is therefore arguable/argumentative. So his opinions are his argumentative viewpoints about critics who disliked the movie and are therefore not allowed by WP:QS. Furthermore, WP:QS specifically addresses how questionable sources are heavily reliant on personal opinions, meaning that the limits on QS applies to opinions as well. WP:Abouself specifically says "it does not involve claims about third parties". This is not restricted to facts but to all "claims" which includes opinions. Is Shapiro making claims about third parties? Yes. Therefore it's a violation of WP policy to include it.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic - For the record, Erik, the balancing material on the bio/legal issue is neither "SYNTH" nor "OR", as it consists of direct source quotation, any more than the background legal sentence in the old version of the previous paragraph was, which was sourced to an article that didn't mention the film, or than the current background legal clause/link is. It's irresponsible for this article to omit any mention of D'Souza's claim having serious support, which it does, if we're going to have some hack partisan blogger say it doesn't. If you're trying to make a distinction between Dershowitz and the WT commenting on the actual case while the HP bloggers are merely commenting on the film not supporting the claim, that's a fine, convoluted tightrope to walk considering the HP quotes used don't make that clear. If balancing material is banned here, at the very least it would be wise to add a clarifying paraphrase along the lines of "...embarrassing and without support" in the film. after the closing quote, lest readers be misled. VictorD7 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have NOT cast aspersions on the motives of any editors. My commentary has been towards the rationale given. Gamaliel, given that you said (above) "We need a pretty compelling reason to employ a contemptible source like Breitbart...." I think IDONTLIKEIT applies, but I AGF as to your motives. As for edit warring, please note that two editors commented here on the edit and you did your reverts without discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissing the policy-based reasons offered for not including the material as IDONTLIKEIT is not compatible with AGF. How many times do we have to identify the policy based reasons we object to inclusion before you people actually accept that policy based reasons are being offered? You don't have to agree with them, but to pretend they haven't been offered again and again and again is preposterous. Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At Erik, WP:Biased strictly applies to reliable sources. "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." It does not apply to questionable sources. Questionable and self published sources have their own stringent guidelines that have to be met. Those sources can be biased, but they can not include claims about third parties. So WP:biased does not override or bypass the guidelines in place regarding questionable source or SPS. WP:biased goes on to say "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." This, again, proves that sources still have to meet WP requirements for being a reliable source. If the source is not reliable, then it can not be included under an argument of WP:biased.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the RfC from not long ago - where the consensus was that Breitbart is absolutely RS for opinions cited as opinions here.

Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. Samsara 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Which rather seems to end the arguments ad nauseam. Once a WP:CONSENSUS is found, it takes a bit of chutzpah to reargue the exact same issue. (proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive.) Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute is not about the same question. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)source for opinions expressed by its writers?[reply]
It is precisely the same question: Is Breitbart a Reliable Source for opinions cited as opinions? I would trust you concur that film reviews are, indeed, opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issues are a bit different than those brought up in the RFC. Mainly the RFC did not address BLP concerns. In the recent Shapiro edits and reverts the argument is made that because Shapiro is talking about unnamed critics, BLP should apply. But does Shapiro talk about any individual or about any individual's politics? Well, since we do not have individuals named, the most pertinent policy is at WP:BLPGROUP. But what is the "group" of persons we seek to protect? In this case it is those critics that Shapiro sees as liberals. But are they a "group" in the BLPGROUP sense? I don't think so – they have not identified themselves as the "Association of Film Critics who Don't Like America" Indeed, they don't even qualify as a Neighborhood Watch. They are simply an assortment of critics that Shapiro describes as liberal. And we do not know if they identify themselves as a group. Bottom line – the BLP argument is not applicable. If it were, then any critic who said "The filmmaker(s) has/have created a dud/masterpiece." would not be acceptable because of BLP concerns. – S. Rich (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually like Breitbart, but it is currently considered in general a questionable source by WP. That said, it can be a source for itself reliably. The RfC doesn't really apply in this new case, because the RfC was as to if Breitbart can be a reliable sources as to its own commentary on the film (through the Christian Toto review), this is a straightforward application without any BLP issues involved that a questionable source can be a source for its own views about itself. If there is no BLP issue, then Breitbart can be trusted to reliably report its own opinion. The question then becomes with this more recent quote by Shapiro, is there a BLP issue? Had he said "reviewer X cant separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones" then I would say there is. In this case though he does not single out any individual critic, and instead refers to movie critics in general. I don't think this qualified for BLP under WP:BLPGROUP. The question is the group he is talking about so small that "it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group." In this case "movie critics" in general is a broad enough term that I don't think WP:BLPGROUP applies. And while consensus cannot override policy, that doesn't mean it can't decide where the dividing line is in close cases. So if consensus is that the group is too large for WP:BLPGROUP to apply, then it should be added back in. Obsidi (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you present four critics by name then shortly after that you present a quote directly attacking unnamed movie critics, the reader is going to interpret that as Shapiro attacking Martin Tsai, et al. So BLP issues definitely come into play here, and as a result we have a responsibility to consider the reliability of the criticism and criticism's source. Do we want to use Wikipedia's voice to present an attack from a publication known for fabrications and vicious attacks (e.g Shirley Sherrod) written by a known fabulist and character assassin (e.g. "Friends of Hamas") and present that attack as directed at four named living individuals? Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll acknowledge that it is a debatable question (I think the core question) would a reasonable reader come to the conclusion from reading the article as a whole that Shapiro was talking about the movie critics named on this page, or movie critics in general. I come down on the other side of that question. --Obsidi (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here you admit that Breitbart is a questionable source. Yes, a questionable source can be reliable for it's own opinions, but the second part of the policies surrounding questionable sources is that they should only be used on articles or topics about themselves. If a writer for Breitbart decided to review a scientific research paper about global climate change, that doesn't mean we get to include quotes from Breitbart.com expressing a dissenting opinion, even if it's directly attributed to BB. It's because the article "global climate change" is not about breitbart.com and it is considered a questionable source which is not suitable or reliable enough to include for opinions on other subjects. Furthermore, both WP:QS and WP:Aboutself say that questionable sources can not be used to make contentious claims about others/third parties. Is Shapiro making claims about others? Yes. Is Breitbart.com a questionable source? Yes. Then it is WP policy that the quote can not be included and as you said "consensus cannot override policy." This is really very simple.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is he "making claims about others"? The answer to that question must be based on WP:BLPGROUP, and as that policy says "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis." So its not so open as shut as you are trying to make it out to be. --Obsidi (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:QS and WP:Aboutself are not restricted by BLP guidelines. They specifically speak to claims about third parties and those parties can be dead or living. Furthermore, BLP guidelines apply to reliable sources that make claims about others. This is from the lead of BLP "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a **reliable**, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation."(emphasis mine). The WP:BLPGROUP you reference only applies to a reliable source that makes those claims, they do not apply to questionable sources, poorly sourced sources, tabloids, or self published sources as is explained throughout the entire article. So if a source is considered questionable, it is automatically disqualified from the same protections that WP:BLP gives reliable sources with the exception of sources that are written by the subject because then they act as a primary source. As BLP states, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." However, I didn't need to read WP:BLP to know that because it's already specifically outlined in WP:QS and WP:Aboutself which both take precedence since they are part of one of the 3 pillars of WP policy. So, "Yes", it's as open and shut as I make it, even more so. Trying to find some loophole on BLP wouldn't override WP:verifiable or WP:reliability guidelines which specifically state that questionable sources can not make claims about third parties. BLP guidelines offer additional clarification for sources that already meet WP reliable/verifiable standards. They do not give extra permissions to questionable sources or unreliable sources not covered by WP:verifiable or WP:reliable.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So who is this "third party" that you say the Shapiro quote is about? You can make the argument that because of how we have put other quotes near by that a reader might think he was talking about them specifically (that's a reasonable argument, one I disagree with, but reasonable). But if it is not them, then who? --Obsidi (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The third parties or "others" would be the critics that he's directly commenting on. It doesn't have to be a specific third party, hence why the policies don't say "a specific person". It would be the same as if he was commenting on "Jews" or "Blacks", when a QS makes contentious claims about third parties they can not be used.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might you direct us to the policy which says that criticism about large groups of unnamed people needs the sourcing you aver, noting that the claim is opinion cited as opinion, that the source was found to be RS at WP:RS/N and that other material from the same source were found by consensus at a very recent RfC above to be usable in this article? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC only found Breitbart to be reliable as a source for its own opinions. This doesn't stop it from being a questionable source as defined by WP:QS. Yes, WP:QS states that such sources can be used as reliable sources for their own content but should only be used on articles/topics about themselves. This is because they can act as "primary" sources for their own content and those primary sources are only applicable on articles about that source/person. For example, on the Shapiro page I can use a Breitbart.com article written by Shapiro to quote something Shapiro as said. Also, both WP:QS and WP:Aboutself both explain that questionable sources can not be used to make claims about third parties and a group of unnamed people is still a third party. Cheers.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD is not a problem for keeping it in the article currently, this quote was added on 5 November 2014, the next day Gamaliel reverted do to WP:UNDUE (this could be valid claim of BRD at this point), VictorD7 reverted complaining about 1 sided reverts for undue, Gamaliel reverted linking to a video of monkey sounds, really somewhat unbecoming of an administrator, which is why I think Gamaliel self-reverted 2 hours later. That was this diff and so it sat for a month until December 3rd when Scoobydunk removed it again and we got the current edit war. That month in-between established consensus for inclusion, and so now it cannot be removed without consensus or a valid policy reason. If there is consensus that BLP issue is not valid, it should be put back in as soon as protection is over (or sooner if the consensus is very clear through an edit request). Unless you can get consensus that it should be removed for non-BLP reasons. --Obsidi (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So because I was unwilling to prolong an edit war, the most stubborn edit warrior gets his edits in the article permanently? That's no consensus, that's providing an incentive for playground-style bullying. Multiple editors object to inclusion, so it should be discussed on talk until real consensus is achieved. That's how Wikipedia works, and the rules don't change because I linked to a monkey video. Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you turn around after he added it back and discuss it on the talk page and get consensus for its removal? Because if so we can keep it off, but you didn't. You decided to walk away, which is fine if that's what you want to do. Someone else could have removed what he added. But we cant have a situation in which things are sitting live on the page for a long time and then removed long time down the road for lack of consensus. How is anyone to know what the current consensus is otherwise? Had someone else removed his addition, everyone would know that it wasn't the consensus. But as is the other editors were left to believe you changed your mind, agreed with him that it should be included, that in isolation maybe it was undue but with the other stuff on the page balancing it out that it wasn't undue. Maybe that's not what you meant at all, but it is what the other editors on the page have to assume to be the case. Otherwise it encourages people to get into disagreements and if they think the consensus is currently against them just go silent until everyone else leaves and then come back and claim no consensus for adding it. I'm not saying that is what you did, I am saying that is the incentive that would be created if we interpreted the rules as you are suggesting. --Obsidi (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair interpretation of the potential pitfalls of that approach, but then I could justifiably point out that it provides an incentive for editors to be as obnoxious as possible to run off other editors, and whoever is left standing gets their edits in as the "consensus" version. This is exactly what has happened here. I wished to remove myself from the objectionable behavior of a certain party for a time instead of further escalating the situation. That other party's behavior should not be rewarded. I understand what you are saying at that we want to avoid editors gaming the system by dropping in and out at strategic intervals. But we also want people to be able to take wikibreaks when they need to. All of that, though, is secondary. The fact is that right now, multiple editors are objecting to certain material, and there has never been a consensus for that material to be included. At that point, regardless of how long the material has been in the article, talk page discussion should occur instead of edit warring to restore the material. Gamaliel (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
False. I'm not the one who has repeatedly resorted to trolling via giant pictures or links to youtube videos instead of replying with reasoned comments. You are. Regardless, despite you not being the only editor here, the material stood without revert for a month, so it's the consensus status quo. Removing it requires a consensus for doing so. VictorD7 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that your understanding of the RFC is incorrect. The RFC didn't address the content of the article from Breitbart.com, it only addressed whether it was "allowable" on this article. This doesn't mean there was consensus for "inclusion" as that was outside of the scope of the RFC. There are still a multitude of other WP policies that address whether or not a specific quote should be included and those weren't discussed under the RFC. For example, many secondary sources are allowable on any number of articles, but when the majority of sources are from scholarly journals or academic presses that undergo peer review, then those less reliable secondary sources no longer merit inclusion. Regardless, the RFC didn't give a free license for any and all material from breitbart.com to be included, it only determined that it was reliable for it's own quote and was allowable. However, WP policy clearly states that questionable sources are not allowed to make claims about others and the RFC consensus doesn't override policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are many potential issues you might raise, but current consensus was to include the Shapiro quote because it didn't violate any policy, Consensus Can Change however, and if you would like to make the argument against including the Shapiro quote that is fine, can I ask that you place your arguments in a different section so we don't mix the QS/BLP potential issues that we have been talking about in this thread with any other potential problems you might object to. --Obsidi (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't a consensus to include the Shapiro quotes. The RFC dealt with a quote from Toto, not Shapiro. Furthermore, the closer as admitted that his closing consensus only pertained to the aspect that breitbart.com is a reliable source for it's own movie review, not that it automatically merited inclusion. I'm merely correcting your misunderstanding of the RFC. Since you and others keep asserting that it gave consensus for inclusion, when it didn't. The RFC covered what was allowable, not what should/shouldn't be included. So if you want to argue inclusion, I suggest you make another section relevant to those claims.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim the RfC gave consensus for the Shapiro quote (it did create consensus for the Christian Toto review). The 1 month of it sitting on the page without being reverted by anyone created the consensus via editing as per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. --Obsidi (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that you claimed I removed a review after the RFC and I only remember recently removing the Shapiro quote. Since this discussion is taking place under the Shapiro quote section, that also lead me to believe you were referring to the Shapiro quote. Regarding the Toto quote, the month of it not being removed does not imply consensus since I've been actively seeking a closure review. So that's not consensus, I merely waited until the review was closed.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is a significant opinion and therefore not worth including. TFD (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel: I am not dismissing the policies offered. I have considered them and presented analysis as to why they do or do not apply in this case. Regarding the placement of the Shapiro quote after the 4 named critics, that bit of unintentional and incidental synthesis can be resolved when the article is unlocked. We simply move the quote or clarify what was said. Next, there will be no permanent version of this article. Everyone can change it and consensus can change. The comment about Breibart being a "publication known for fabrications" is ad hominem because this allegation is used to attack Shapiro & his opinion. Fabrications have been seen in the NYT and just today Rolling Stone is in the news because of a possible fabrication it published recently. Besides, Shapiro is offered for the opinion he provides, not for any factual issue. Regarding BLPGROUP, my point is that the critics are not "a group". If they were, and if comments about them fell within BLP restrictions, then we could not use material about the critic aggregator webpages. Since Metacritic & Rotten Tomatoes are acceptable RS for the information they post about living persons (e.g., for the opinions they hold and publish) we cannot exclude Shapiro on BLP grounds. – S. Rich (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Srich, please review the meaning of "ad hominem." You are misusing the term. SPECIFICO talk 03:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're dismissing the policies offered and you didn't present an analysis, you merely just asserted that Breitbart.com wasn't a questionable source and also said that WP:aboutself only applies to SPS, which is blatantly wrong. So you haven't substantiated your first assertion and have ignored a rebuttal informing you that ABOUTSELF applies to questionable source as well. So, at this point, you are effectively ignoring policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The QS issue was thoroughly hashed out in the RFC above. The RFC closure was discussed and there was no decision to reverse the RFC closure. While consensus can change, there is no reason to change the RFC result here. As far as QS is concerned, it it time to WP:MOVEON. – S. Rich (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the same issue. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The QS aspect was **not** discussed thoroughly as I'm looking at how no one responded to or refuted my arguments regarding QS. The only person who actually responded with intent to refute one of my arguments was Documenterror and he said my response was "too long to digest," while it was only 100-200 words longer than his previous post. Clearly he refused to research pertinent WP policies regarding the situation. So, "No" the QS issue wasn't "hashed out" as most people who contributed their comments completely ignored this aspect of wp policy. The RFC itself was an attempt to bypass WP policies regarding questionable sources but consensus on an RFC can not override policy. Your referencing WP:Moveon is what should have been told to Victor the third, fourth, or fifth time he participated in a noticeboard/dispute resolution discussion about the use of breitbart.com and this is another example of you dismissing WP policy and only referencing it when it's convenient. So are you going to actually try and offer a rebuttal to the arguments made, or are you going to tell us more about how WP:AboutSelf doesn't apply to questionable sources?Scoobydunk (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. People didn't respond to your arguments because they were clearly not valid, and different policy applied. The RfC was for there to build consensus as to how the policies applied to this specific instance from the wider community as there was local disagreement not to override policy. Its time to WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass as far as the RfC, you can argue that it doesn't apply in this situation, which I think is true. --Obsidi (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obsidi, you are denigrating Scoobydunk and stating that you disagree but you are not responding to the policy issues Scoobydunk or Srich32977 have raised. It would be helpful if you could address these issues so that the issues can be resolved. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gave my opinion on the substantive issues of the potential policy problems of the Shapiro quote here. And I stand by that. I didn't disagree that it is currently considered a QS, but that doesn't mean that it can never be used (just limits its use especially as applied to third parties). In this case, I don't think there is a BLP problem however, and as such I am fine with using it (as long as it is properly attributed). I object to this sentence:"The RFC itself was an attempt to bypass WP policies regarding questionable sources but consensus on an RFC can not override policy." and his allegations of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. If he wants to make those in the currently still open review of the closure, that's fine (and I have explained THERE why I don't think they are valid). This is not the place to try to undo a closure of an RfC, and continuing to do so is disruptive. If he succeeds in getting the closure reversed at WP:AN then we can talk about what to do, but until that happens its time to WP:DROPTHESTICK about if RfC closure was valid or not here (bring those arguments to WP:AN). --Obsidi (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we be clearer about this matter? We are discussing whether or not to use Breitbart.com as a reference, correct? The RfC discussed whether or not to reference a film review published at Breitbart.com. The conclusion was that it can be used. Now here we are talking about a passage that is more general commentary. In this article, we are dealing with political opinions, so we are attributing every statement to the appropriate source. Per WP:YESPOV, we are not stating opinions as facts; the opinions all have specific attributions that Wikipedia reports and that the readers can take however they wish. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current discussion relates to specific article content, not only to the website to which it's sourced. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion established that Breitbart was WP:RS for opinions cited as opinions. Thus the website issue is moot. On what actual grounds would you excise this opinion cited as opinion, and noting it refers to "film critics" in general, thus is not a WP:BLP issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ridiculous and you just admitted that people ignored the argument which means they ignored the policies. You admit that Breitbart.com is regarded as a questionable source, and WP:QS and WP:aboutself specifically limit where questionable sources can be used. They can not make contentious claims about others, period. This is also part of the reason that QS and self published sources aren't quoted when discussing "global warming", "physics", or "historicity" of historical figures, an aspect you and others seem keen on ignoring.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every RS publication - Rolling Stone, The New York Times, etc. - has published stories which turn out to be false, but those publications still in general have the required reputation for factchecking and accuracy. It is a false equivalence to equate that situation with publications like Breitbart which have zero reputation for factchecking and accuracy and instead have the opposite reputation, one of falsification and character assassination. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has been repeatedly discussed at WP:RS/N as well as in the RfC above, with the result that opinions are scarcely likely to be faked by their own authors. Here we deal with general opinions, correctly sourced and cited as such. Thus usable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. No doubt that Breitbart has made mistakes over it's 7 year existence so far. The biggest of which is the whole "Friends of Hamas" incident. They posted what a senate aid told them, and they posted it as such ("A senate said told us..."). They should have also gone to independently confirm everything they could (like the groups independent existence), but they didn't in that case. But the Rolling Stone is basically guilty of the exact same thing with this recent UVA rape story. Stupid not to do the ground work to confirm the story they were told was actually true (like that there was a party that night or that the "Drew" even exists). --Obsidi (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hardly consider Rolling Stone the gold standard, but at any rate it is not relevant to this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Above you note that Breitbart is considered a questionable source. Obviously questionable sources like Breitbart should not be treated as the equivalent of generally reliable ones like Rolling Stone, The New York Times, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly, Breitbart has been found to be RS for opinions cited as opinions. Have you failed to note that? And specifically the RfC above found Breitbart to be usable for opinions cited as opinions. IDIDNTHEARTHAT is disheartening coming from an admin who has acted as an admin on this article (17:11 19 Aug), (19:47 26 Aug). Collect (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hear it just fine. We can use it, I got it. However, that finding does not mandate that we must include those particular opinions in the article, nor does it eliminate all other considerations like BLP, notability, etc. As for the rest of it, since you didn't include diffs, I'm not going to dig through the edit history to figure out how whatever forgotten edits I made months ago are somehow relevant to this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the times -- one is hard-pressed to give a "diff" on a revdel by an admin, or a move by an admin. They were specifically admin actions to be sure, but you definitely acted in that role. Collect (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The dates and times don't seem to match anything in the edit history I can find. On the 19th I deleted a personal attack in an edit summary in an edit with a different time stamp, and on the 26th I can't find anything I did to the article at all. I fail to see the relevance of any of this. Gamaliel (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inasmuch as they are in your log, I daresay that they do not "show up in the edit history." Special:Log/Gamaliel is the place to look. In one you moved the article archive as an admin, in the other you "changed visibility of a revision on page America (2014 film): edit summary hidden (RD3: Purely disruptive material) " which is also an admin action. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The latter was the action of the 19th I already mentioned in my comment, the action of the 26th was a page move of a talk page archive which obviously wouldn't appear in the edit history of the article where I was looking and a page move is not an admin action in any case. Still waiting for the relevance of this. Perhaps we should move this discussion to my talk page since it has nothing to do with the Shapiro quote. Gamaliel (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely inappropriate to use admin powers in a dispute in which you're a heated participant as an editor, especially in strictly one sided fashion. Were you the one who deleted my innocuous edit summary while ignoring the personal attacks coming from your side, and the trollish material in your own edit summaries? I had my suspicions, but charitably assumed you had at least talked another admin into doing it. VictorD7 (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times and Rolling Stone are not good examples for comparison. We reference the online-only sources Daily Kos and Salon for political opinions. How is Breitbart different from these to disqualify it for referencing? Is it strictly a BLP concern, since we already reference it for a film review? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Salon is an RS, not a questionable source. I don't think Daily Kos belongs here either, but if a questionable source like Breitbart is included, then the same relaxation of standards should apply to both sides of the debate. Gamaliel (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Salon is a left wing opinion blog, even more questionable for most situations than a news/opinion site like Breitbart that employs professional reporters, editors, and critics, and RS depends on context. Here both sources are acceptable because we're merely covering attributed, quoted opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart is no more "QS" than Salon, the Daily Kos, or the HuffPo bloggers personally attacking D'Souza on a sensitive legal topic are. The RFC is pertinent here in rejecting dunk's argument because it found Breitbart RS for its film review here on the basis of it being an attributed opinion. scoobydunk incorrectly stated above that no one had engaged him on his policy argument. I certainly did extensively, refuting it (he tellingly dodged the question about whether his reasoning would also apply to the section's other sources, gutting Wikipedia review/opinion sections in general, repeatedly insisting that his only focus was on trying to get Breitbart removed), and when he pushed the RFC closer on his talk page the editor replied, "The bottom line here is that it's my role as closer to assess community opinion. In this case, a clear majority of the community did not follow your interpretation of QS." It would be an extreme NPOV violation to allow political commentary from a hodgepodge of leftist sites but prohibit it from the internet's most prominent conservative one, this particular piece from a notable best selling author with his own Wikipedia page at that, and there is no compelling, rational basis for doing so. VictorD7 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disallowing opinions from reliable sources, but BB is not a reliable source. Furthermore, it's not my "interpretation" of QS, the policy says it explicitly. Furthermore, for the closer's assertion is incorrect, because the "majority" didn't address QS and ignored it outright. Also, in the RFC you didn't refute QS policy, you only made a snide comment that I misinterpreted QS which is absurd because I quoted it directly and that' requires no interpretation.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC explicitly rejected your claim by finding Breitbart RS for its opinions here. If it's RS for a film review there's no logical reason for it to not be RS for an attributed political opinion in the political commentary section. We're covering opinions in this section; we aren't using the sources in question for facts in Wikipedia's voice. Also, there was nothing "snide" about my rejection of your QS argument in the RFC. At the top of the RFC I also linked to the discussion (archived in Nov.) where you and I extensively discussed your QS argument, and where its contradictions and other flaws were exposed. Clearly the policy can be interpreted in multiple ways, as can most policies, which is why most people disagree with you, here, on the RS noticeboard, and even on the Verifiability talk page itself, where the editor most familiar with that page's construction over the years indicated my position was correct, and said QS wasn't supposed to be about automatically disqualifying sources or excluding opinions (in the comments I quoted for you in the discussion here). The problem is that your interpretation, if applied consistently, would gut review sections across the board and prohibit us from covering opinions currently covered (some of them of extreme historical relevance) throughout countless articles. Your failure to answer my repeated questioning about your stance on the section's other sources is likely a major reason why your arguments have fallen flat. Now you're reduced to insisting the RFC closer was incorrect. The closer was correct, because your QS argument failed to persuade the community, and Breitbart was deemed RS here (at least) because we're attributing its quoted opinions in the appropriate section. VictorD7 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There weren't contradictions, you merely engaged in multiple logical fallacies in the forms of red herring arguments and false equivalencies. You just did it again literally 2 posts up. Furthermore, my arguments weren't addressed or refuted in the RFC, they were ignored. Also, your interpretation about what others have said have proven to be incorrect. You've misinterpreted me on multiple occasions and also misunderstood TFD when you admitted you were confused about his position. I debunked your findings from forumshopping multiple talk pages as well. I never said that being a QS made a source automatically disqualified. As a matter of fact, I explained multiple times how WP:QS allows a questionable source to be used a reliable source for its own content on articles/topics about itself. I also explained that it can be used in such a way because it would be acting as a primary source for its own opinions. However, as WP:QS and WP:Aboutself clearly state, these sources can not be used to make claims about third parties and should only be used on topics/articles about themselves. There is no interpretation there, that's explicit WP policy that's reinforced and upheld across multiple WP pages. Also, the closer admitted to ignoring policies relevant to the RFC and demonstrated a number of times that they didn't understand the scope of the RFC which included a question about it being allowable. But that's a completely different subject. The fact of the matter is, consensus can not override policy and the policy is very clear about how and where questionable sources can be used.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you asserted about me and my commentary in your post above is false, and you haven't "debunked" anything I've ever said. Since you failed to provide any specifics, I'll leave it to honest third party observers to read our exchanges and judge for themselves. Even if one accepted your interpretation of sourcing policy, the RFC explicitly concluded Breitbart was RS here for its attributed opinions about others, meaning it's not QS. You've certainly done little to argue that it is questionable, other than repeatedly asserting it is, and claiming that hosting ads (as does every media outlet used) somehow gives it a conflict of interest (you only mentioned FNC ads, which have nothing to do with this movie). You ignored my posts explaining to you why that's not true. The only QS criteria we can agree on Breitbart meeting is the heavy reliance on opinion, but that sentence starts with "Such sources include..", and, as someone observed on the Verifiability talk page, doesn't necessarily mean all such sources are QS (inclusion isn't necessarily comprehensive). If they were, then most of the sources currently used in the section would be QS, especially those that rely heavily or entirely on personal opinion like Kos, Salon, The Atlantic, Media Matters, etc.. In fact Wikipedia film reception sections are typically filled with heavily opinionated sources, which is a hazard of covering opinions, and countless articles would have to be substantially altered to fit with your interpretation.
Regarding your QS interpretation, you also mischaracterized what policy actually says, despite being corrected repeatedly (in the past you literally misquoted it). It says "especially in articles about themselves", not "only". The word "topic" doesn't appear in either section you cite. It states that questionable sources can be used for "material on themselves". It's certainly not only possible but extremely reasonable to interpret an attributed quote capturing the source's own opinion as material on itself. In that case we aren't using the source to support facts in Wikipedia's voice, but rather we're directly covering a source's opinion as material in its own right (the "topic" here being political commentary). You say that the section doesn't explicitly mention quotes as an exception, but it doesn't state that it's referring to quotes either, nor does it clearly define "material on themselves". Context guides us. The page is Verifiability, the focus of which is making sure that the sources used can be trusted to support the material they're supporting. Content decisions, by contrast, are properly guided by factors elsewhere like NPOV and DUE. Note that quotations are mentioned in a couple of places in the Verifiability page's first few paragraphs (intro and first section), where they're lumped in with other "material" and the concern is making sure they're properly sourced, not whether the view contained within the quote is appropriate. You would have an easier time making a sourcing argument against Breitbart for quoting someone else, like a leftist (though I'd still disagree with you), than claiming that Breitbart isn't RS for its own opinion.
In a vacuum is there room for differing interpretations of QS and some other Wikipedia policies? Sure. That's true even with laws or rules written entirely by one person or a small group with a shared agenda, much less ones constructed gradually by many over time in Wiki fashion. But my interpretation is more reasonable because it better fits the context of the page's primary purpose, and consistently applying it wouldn't require us to substantially alter countless articles, including this one. By contrast, slavishly following the alternative interpretation as a perceived technicality would prevent us from covering noteworthy opinions in sections ranging from film reviews to political commentary to the views of historical figures. Selectively applying it would constitute a gross and unacceptable NPOV violation. More saliently, the community has already rejected your interpretation. VictorD7 (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My claims are not false and I've explained precisely how you've engaged in multiple red herring arguments by making false equivalencies. Furthermore, I don't interpret WP:QS, I quote it directly. In the RFC my position wasn't rejected, it was ignored, which are 2 completely different things. The Supreme Court ignores cases all the time, that doesn't mean it rejected a position or previous ruling in the case it ignored. Furthermore, I haven't "misquoted" WP:QS sine quoting is literally a matter of copying and pasting. WP:QS says "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves". Is this movie/article about Shapiro or his article from Breitbart.com? NOPE. That's not a policy interpretation, that's literally what the policy says. Now, I have said "topics" because that would be synonymous with "material" but if you want to take the policy literally, then we can just limit the inclusion of questionable source to "articles about themselves," and then the inclusion of Shapior's quote would certainly not apply here. Everything you did above with discussion what "especially" meant and all that nonsense, is what actually qualifies as interpretation. WP:QS says they "SHOULD ONLY" be used as sources of material about themselves and this film/WP article about this film are not materials about Shapiro, Breitbart.com, or his article. The RFC didn't address this AT ALL and the "consensus" of the RFC can not bypass WP policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you asserted about me here is false again. I even quoted where the closer (the SCOTUS opinion writer in your analogy) explicitly told you that the community had rejected your QS argument. In what universe would interpreting "especially in articles about themselves" "literally" (your word) mean only articles about themselves? Again, you and I literally disagree about what precisely "material on themselves" includes, so yes, interpretation is involved. Regarding the RFC, explicitly finding that Breitbart is reliable for its own film review here (that's contentious material about others) is logically a rejection of your argument (which was addressed by me and others), as the closer correctly concluded. You opposed the film review's inclusion based on the same flawed rationale you're using here, and there's no meaningful difference between the cases. As explained before, the interpretation of the community here is superior to yours because, unlike yours, a consistent application of ours wouldn't require most of this section's sources to be purged, wouldn't cause countless articles to be gutted, and wouldn't prohibit editors from covering historically important and other noteworthy opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scoobydunk, per WP:QS, are you considering Breitbart.com to be either "extremist" or "promotional"? Is it the political slant itself or something else? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." I've argued that Breitbart.com is a questionable source for nearly all of those aspects. It has a poor reputation for fact checking and has an apparent conflict of interest. It can be considered promotional towards Fox news since it runs advertisements for Fox and uses multiple fox news polls in their articles. I do believe it is considered extremist and it relies HEAVILY on personal opinion. There are multiple aspects as to why it's considered a questionable source.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is arguing to treat the commentary as truth. We are attributing the statement so it is clear where it comes from, a conservative source. The same is done in the article with Daily Kos. We could add modifiers to all sources that mention a political slant in their respective Wikipedia articles. Being politically slanted is not grounds for excluding the opinion. Commentary is rarely objective, hence the need for attribution. Per WP:YESPOV, we're not trying to describe opinions as facts, we're reporting opinions. Per WP:DUE, for this political (not scientific or historical) topic, there is strong liberal and conservative bases, so including such commentary is warranted and should also be folded per WP:STRUCTURE. I'm looking for more commentary about the political slant of reviews as they apply to this film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, please: In this thread, are not discussing Daily Kos or anything other than the a particular bit of text sourced to Breitbart. Policy clearly does not provide a safe harbor for WP text to present derogation merely because it such derogation is called opinion. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we are focusing strictly on this passage, a conservative commentator is saying that the mainstream film critics have a liberal slant in their reviews. Are we concerned about this because of BLP concerns, or undue weight, or both? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, treating the commentary as "truth" has nothing to do with it. There is nothing in the QS policies that make a distinction between opinions or factual statements or statements made in WP voice. The policies regarding questionable source are clearly defined and they CAN NOT make claims, especially contentious claims, about third parties. That's it, end of argument. This is further reinforced on nearly every other policy that has been cited so far, that explicitly restrict the inclusion of questionable sources. WP:Biased only applies to reliable sources and you've yet to refute that. That's directly inline with what WP:QS and WP:AboutSelf say. WP:BLP also limits it's application to reliable sources and specifically says to remove material from sources that are not reliable, poorly sourced, or are quesitonable/self published. There is no inconsistency or ambiguity with how these policies are applied. They apply to opinions and statements from sources considered reliable, and they do not apply to sources that are questionable. Every time I quote how the policies explicitly state this, it gets ignored by editors trying to include opinions from questionable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scoobydunk, you stated above, "[Breitbart] has a poor reputation for fact checking and has an apparent conflict of interest. It can be considered promotional towards Fox news since it runs advertisements for Fox and uses multiple fox news polls in their articles. I do believe it is considered extremist and it relies HEAVILY on personal opinion." We know that reliable sources can be biased, so a relationship to Fox does not matter, since this is unsurprisingly a conservative outlet. However, beyond having a conservative bias, why do you think it has a poor reputation for fact checking? I just used a Breitbart reference to provide some details in "Production". Is where it filmed questionable? How is the website more "extremist" than National Review? I'm not seeing a distinction between these conservative outlets. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources can be biased, but that is a completely different issue than a blatant conflict of interest which is outlined on WP:QS. So WP:Biased doesn't excuse or absolve things from being identified as having a conflict of interest. The "extremist" claim in WP:QS isn't up to editors discretion but up to other sources that consider the outlet to be extremist. So your inability to differentiate its extremism is irrelevant. If you want to open up a noticeboard discussion about BB being a questionable source, then feel free and I'll happily post everything relevant. However, it should be noted that this has been discussed multiple times before and Breitbart.com is not considered a reliable source. You also seemed to overlook the part about it being heavily reliant on opinion pieces.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course RS is context specific, but I haven't seen any noticeboard discussion conclude that Breitbart "is not a reliable source". Certainly the recent round of such discussions have found it RS. VictorD7 (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except the RFC explicitly found Breitbart RS here, for its attributed opinions about others, so that's a settled issue. Your "QS" argument has been rejected for multiple reasons. Perhaps you should move on to challenging sources that haven't been approved as RS here via RFC, like the entirely opinionated Salon, Kos, Media Matters, etc.. I'd disagree with you there too if you applied the same type of QS argument, but at least it would advance the discussion from the dead horse. VictorD7 (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the RFC found BB to be a reliable source for its own opinions. This didn't even need an RFC because WP:QS and WP:Aboutself already say that questionable sources should only be used as reliable sources in ARTICLES/TOPICS about themselves. This wasn't covered or addressed in the RFC nor in the RFC closing consensus statement. Yes, you can use a BB article to act as a reliable primary source for something that Shapiro said, but then it would only have relevance on an article about Shapiro or Breitbart.com. This does not allow it to be used on other articles that aren't about the source in question and those policies explicitly say that those sources can not make contentious claims about others. The RFC didn't address any of this and it wouldn't matter because an RFC consensus can't override the policies that strictly prohibit using a questionable source like BB.com from making contentious claims about others.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The RFC explicitly asked if Breitbart was RS for its own film review to be placed in this article, not an article about itself. The consensus was "yes", because Breitbart is reliable for its own attributed opinions, even if they're about others and arguably contentious, as film reviews inherently are. The RFC closer specifically responded to you to say that your QS argument had been rejected. VictorD7 (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not wrong and the "consensus" and the closer can not override WP policies regarding questionable sources. You can not choose to simply ignore policies when it benefits your position. Just because you choose to ignore an applicable policy, doesn't mean that policy goes away. Breitbart.com is a questionable source and its usage is clearly limited by WP:QS. You and the closer have admitted to ignoring relevant policies and, unfortunately, that's not how consensus is determined.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've "admitted" no such thing (neither did the closer from what I've seen), and I've proved that assertion wrong with quotes and links. It's getting to the point where virtually every sentence you type is false, which is extremely disruptive. VictorD7 (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one typing the falsities and you have been doing it since before I entered this dispute resolution.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree on that, and let honest observers decide. I'll add that between us I'm the one who actually posts evidence. VictorD7 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every news outlet runs ads (even blogs like Salon.com do). It would be absurd to single out one and claim it has a "conflict of interest" simply because it runs ads. The COI described in policy is contextual (as is QS in general, per long time Verifiability policy page editor BlueBoar), and has to do with a reporter covering a particular story where he or she has a personal financial and/or familial conflict of interest. Biased sources are explicitly allowed even for news coverage, and certainly for attributed opinion coverage. Even if Breitbart was QS, which it's not, that wouldn't prohibit us from merely covering its opinions where appropriate, as such opinions would constitute "information about" itself. VictorD7 (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel says "numerous" editors are objecting to the Shapiro material. Who are they? Presumably Gamaliel – who considers Breitbart contemptible, and Scoopydunk – who (unsuccessfully) brought up the QS issue in the RFC and in the closure review. I'm not sure about Specifico – who makes comments about what the issue is or is not, but does not seem (in my reading) to discuss policy or guidelines. TFD simply says the piece is not noteworthy, but does not present policy or guideline rationale. On the other hand, we have VictorD7, Erik, Collect, Obsidi, and myself who favor (or who do not object to) adding this WP:NOTEWORTHY material. The arguments about BLP and UNDUE have been addressed. The argument about QS was brought up in the RFC and settled. So, it seems to me that the NOTVOTE tally comes up in favor of inclusion. – S. Rich (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm counting myself, User:Scoobydunk, User:The Four Deuces, and User:SPECIFICO as against. Gamaliel (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see. The count is two definite against !votes, supported by two Mugwump#Origin_of_the_terms (no offense intended) !votes. Your !vote is weakened by IDONTLIKEIT. Scoobydunk's is weakened by the fact that the QS issue was resolved. My !vote is a ILIKEIT vote; however, at the same time, I have addressed the QS & BLP concerns. – S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Srich, why cite 'not a vote' and then get into a discussion of vote counts?" Your ad hominem is particularly puzzling, in light of your earlier remarks above in this thread. There's clearly not consensus at this point. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the segment stood without revert for a month, consensus is required to remove it. If there's a lack of consensus the status quo reigns, and clearly there's no consensus for removing it. VictorD7 (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're still on this IDONTLIKEIT bullshit? No matter how many times policy is cited in objections? At this point you're just being a troll. Gamaliel (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel, you said that you did not think Daily Kos should be included in the article either. You said if it is being used, then the same relaxed standard should be used for Breitbart as well. Both are basically stridently political outlets, but each outlet's politics are prevalent in the United States, and I think including their commentary meets the due-weight standard. At the same time, I've added commentary from other sources that either have print-publication roots or are nominally nonpartisan or both. So Daily Kos and Breitbart are increasingly just a part of the general field of commentary. If it is a question of the content, referring to film critics as politically biased, we could link to Media bias in the United States#Liberal bias to reflect the roots of Shapiro's particular commentary. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we're elevating non-notable comments from fringe political outlets from both sides to significant commentary. There is plenty of commentary out there about the movie, from mainstream film critics and mainstream political commentators and news outlets, for our purposes, both apolitical and representing all relevant political viewpoints. We should not give undue weight to insignificant, extremely problematic commentary because a few editors with ideological agendas are willing to argue about it at length. Gamaliel (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about mainstream commentary, which is why I've referenced U.S. News & World Report, National Journal, and The Guardian in the article body. I plan to add Forbes soon. I don't think that means commentary from the political outlets should be excluded entirely, though. There is not a political consensus like there can be a scientific consensus or a historical consensus. We know per WP:BIASED, "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Liberal and conservative viewpoints are both prevalent in the U.S. so it is not unreasonable to reference them, just that we should not detail them as much as the mainstream references. I think that meets the balancing-aspect of addressing NPOV concerns. To reference socialist or libertarian viewpoints would be more in the fringe territory, I think. I'll continue adding whatever other commentary I can find, but I think the more we add, the less prevalent the liberal/conservative commentaries will be in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not object to those sources because they are political, I object to them because they are insignificant fringe sources which are extremely problematic for us to use because of the numerous specific issues raised above. Gamaliel (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are the specific issues again? (Not trying to be pedantic, just trying to nail down the underlying arguments.) And are you applying WP:FRINGE here? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Shapiro is literally "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, meaning he rates his own article, unlike almost everyone else quoted here. When a best selling author who's an editor of the internet's most prominent conservative news/opinion site writes an entire article about the reception to a movie, it's noteworthy, even without the recent expansion of the section. With the expansion, it would be criminal for us to exclude it. VictorD7 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Criminal" -- really? Please cite the statute. SPECIFICO talk 04:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's an expression meaning extremely wrong or inappropriate. Obviously in this context it doesn't literally refer to criminal prosecution. VictorD7 (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please use words to refer to their clear English meanings and refrain from inflammatory characterizations of other editors' views. SPECIFICO talk 04:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please learn to utilize context clues and refrain from wasting other editors' time. VictorD7 (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing Breitbart.com

I'd like to start a new thread since we have quite a wall of text above. The disputed source is Breitbart.com, and there are currently four different uses of this source in the article: (1) Production details from filmmaker interview with Kevin Williams, (2) Film review by Christian Toto, (3) political commentary by Kate O'Hare, and (4) criticism of film reviews by editor Ben Shapiro. (This is among dozens of mostly mainstream sources, aside from National Review, Daily Kos, and a couple of others.) The first three are being referenced in the article body currently. #2 was discussed in an RFC, and the determination was that it could be used. While #4 has been debated, I am not sure if anyone takes issue with #3. Based on my inquiries above, Gamaliel says that Breitbart.com is a "fringe political outlet" (in addition to Daily Kos) and that we should avoid "undue weight to insignificant, extremely problematic commentary". Scoobydunk says Breitbart.com is a questionable source per WP:QS (there is also WP:QUESTIONABLE) and that the RFC in support of referencing the review does not mean that other references from Breitbart.com should be used.

However, I think that WP:BIASED should be taken into consideration: "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." This is backed by WP:RSOPINION, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier." I feel like we have an abundant amount of secondary mainstream sources that the use of political sources will be relatively marginal and satisfy the due-weight standards that Gamaliel was concerned about. Across the board, we attribute all statements and link to the respective publications as well. In the matter of the source being questionable, WP:QUESTIONABLE says, "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Is Breitbart.com more extremist than National Review? U.S. conservatism is prevalent enough that conservative opinions about a work are warranted in a limited sense, per WP:DUE. It seems that WP:QS is best applied to broad topics -- counterarguments to evolution, vaccinations, etc. This topic of the film is very narrow in comparison.

To focus on #4, it appears that Ben Shapiro and his commentary has been scrutinized in mainstream media, and he has written articles for National Review as seen here. (I am assuming nobody has a problem with National Review since it is a circulated print publication.) I continue to add more content and more sources to the article, so it is hardly the same as it was when this dispute first started; even more now, it fits the balance of opinions -- mostly mainstream, with explicitly liberal and conservative ones in the margins. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this is being discussed at WP:RS/N#Breitbart again and WP:BLP/N#America: Imagine the World Without Her, for those interested. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you say, except for differentiating between "political" and "mainstream". Every source in the article has some kind of bias, and every opinion piece written about this movie has an identifiable political slant. The "extremist" thing is silly. Breitbart is well within the conservative mainstream, and indeed is the highest trafficked conservative news/opinion site. Gallup polling has consistently shown over the years that about twice as many Americans identify as "conservative" as "liberal" (roughly 40%-20%), so it would be absurd to dismiss conservatism itself as "fringe". If anything, Breitbart is less fringe than far left outlets like Kos, Salon, and Media Matters. If one is trying to define a "fringe" view as something other than not having widespread popular following (which would be odd in a political context; this isn't a scientific issue), there's still the question of why allegedly being "fringe" would even matter to our coverage of such opinions if the views are directly pertinent to this article, which they clearly are since it's a conservative documentary.
If our task is to cover the political reception to a film, then we can't ignore the elephant in the room (so to speak). The noteworthy political views should all be covered with attribution. It's especially silly when only one Breitbart inclusion is being singled out by an editor for removal. Does he not oppose the others? VictorD7 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page is now protected for two weeks. I suggest that we do a new RFC on this particular matter to finalize this debate. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether this makes sense in view of the recent posting of a thread at RSN. There's no rush about this, so why not let the matter play out there before starting another thread in parallel? SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the necessary difference is that the new RFC will have an explicit conclusion. I don't think an RSN discussion does that; it is still to easy to meander in dissatisfaction of whatever answers are given there. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 04:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't have to do another RFC or noticeboard discussion. The old RFC settled the sourcing issue. Yes, Breitbart is RS for its own writers' opinions. This is just a case of a few editors who didn't like the outcome ignoring it and edit warring without anything resembling a cogent, legitimate rationale. VictorD7 (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:Biased only applies to reliable sources and doesn't apply to questionable source. You seemed to miss from your quoting of WP:Biased "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." Multiple other noticeboard discussions about Breitbart.com have concluded that it is not a reliable source for those very same reasons and others. WP:RSopinion speaks to sources that can be considered reliable for their author's opinion, which would make them a primary source for their author's opinion. The primary source for a Shaprio quote has no relevance to this article about a film. The only primary sources relevant to this article would be sources directly written by the director, the script, or things of that nature. Yes, just about anything can be used as a reliable primary source, that doesn't mean it's reliable for inclusion into articles that aren't about that specific source or its author. That's part of the reason why we don't take tweets from Ken Hamm and include them on the article about Global Climate Change.
Lastly, as per WP:Questionable "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." This specifically says that even when citing a questionable source, it is unsuitable for making contentious claims about third parties and more ill-defined entities. The entities don't have to be well defined, they can be ill-defined and Shapiro's criticisms of leftist critics would be included as ill-defined third parties/entities. Furthermore, it says that the use of questionable sources are very limited. This is the opposite of trying to include questionable sources wherever you want so long as you attribute it. That wouldn't be very limited at all. Luckily, multiple policies clearly express how questionable source are limited and how they can be used. They should only be used in articles about themselves or authors and can't be used to make contentious claims about others. Scoobydunk (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Your quote from Biased doesn't mention attributed quotes, so if one is using such a source to support statements in Wikipedia's voice of course one should consider whether it meets the normal requirements like editorial control and fact checking. WP:RSOPINION is the only section you cite that explicitly mentions attribution, stating: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV states that, "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited." Multiple policy sections make it clear that attributed, quoted opinions have different standards for inclusion than facts presented in Wikipedia's voice. Indeed such an inclusion is described as a factual statement "about" the opinion, as opposed to the opinion's contents being presented as facts, the former making inclusion okay.
The Quotations section, just a couple of paragraphs above WP:RSOPINION, reads, "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.
Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.''" Policy goes so far as to say that quotes should ideally be cited to the original source being quoted, and only to a "reliable secondary source" as a last resort if the former isn't possible (but preferably one that at least includes a citation to the original). Unless one's premise is that only the opinions of people whose work would normally be considered RS for general fact support can have their opinions quoted in Wikipedia, which excludes countless historical figures, critics, and pundits currently quoted throughout appropriate Wikipedia sections, then sources not normally considered RS for general fact support (e.g. film critics, historical works like Hitler's Mein Kampf or Marx's Communist Manifesto that could be relevant to a multitude of historical articles, the Bible, a press release by a politician or famous actor on the topic in question, an expert professor's blog, high profile political pundits commenting on a topic where coverage of opinionated reaction is deemed appropriate) are being endorsed as sources for quotes when coverage of such quotes is appropriate (as governed by NPOV and DUE). As in the other sections, policy recognizes a difference between the sources usable for general fact support (in Wikipedia's voice) and those usable for attributed opinions, with the concern being the "accuracy" of such opinions' transmission, not the nature of the views themselves.
Your Ken Hamm example fails because such inclusion decisions are properly controlled by WP:NPOV and due weight, not Verifiability. There's no need to invoke the latter. The RFC rejected your QS argument, concluding that Breitbart is RS for its own film review (inherently contentious commentary about others) in this article (not one about Breitbart). If we're covering political opinions, then we should cover political opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Ken Hamm example doesn't fail because the logically fallacious arguments you and others are presenting would equally apply to adding Ken Hamm's opinion in science based articles so long as it was quoted and attributed to him. Again, WP:Biased only applies to sources that are already considered reliable and the same goes for WP:RSOPINION. HINT!!! The "RS" in "RSOPINION" stands for "reliable source", meaning that RS:Opinion applies to reliable sources, not questionable ones. Again, stop trying to ignore the WP policies by pretending your RFC did anything to address WP:QS. It didn't and it wouldn't matter if it did because "consensus" doesn't override WP policy. Breitbart.com is a questionable source and its content is explicitly and specifically limited by WP policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's called WP:RSOPINION because it discusses opinion on the RS page, even explaining that sources not usually considered "reliable" can be used with attribution (as I just quoted; the opposite of your characterization here). Your assertions are growing increasingly desperate and hysterical. I'll add that another section on the same page discussing attributed quotes, WP:NEWSORG states that, "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[6] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." This implies that in some cases expert material from an op ed can be used to support statements of fact, but even non-experts can be cited with proper attribution. Of course Shapiro is an expert when it comes to political commentary and media analysis, but yet another example of different standards applying when attribution is used is still worth noting.
The RFC did reject your QS argument in finding Breitbart reliable for its own attributed opinions on others in this article (the closer directly told you as much), and there has never been a consensus finding Breitbart QS anyway, your flawed interpretation aside.
And no, as I've already explained and you've ignored, the Ken Hamm analogy fails because the inclusion of such content is properly controlled by WP:NPOV and due weight. If someone's scientific views are outside the mainstream then sourcing policy isn't required to exclude them from articles simply presenting the mainstream view, rather than the controversy. In fact WP:NPOV, due weight, and common sense editorial judgment have proved sufficient to keep countless opinionated quotes from non "QS" sources from inappropriately littering articles, something you certainly can't credit QS policy for. The same policies, guidelines, and judgement are sufficient in your Hamm scenario. Of course there are numerous science related and other types of articles where Hamm's comments might be appropriate, especially if they're covering the controversies involved, further underscoring how your erroneous QS interpretation would cripple Wikipedia. And, of course, your analogy also fails because Shapiro is firmly in the mainstream of prominent political commentators, and isn't fringe. VictorD7 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You quote WP:NEWSORG and completely ignore the part where it cites WP:EXCEPTIONAL that says exceptional claims should have multiple high quality sources supporting them, shouldn't contradict the prevailing view within the relevant community, and shouldn't have a conflict of interest. A person giving a movie review that criticizes other movie reviewers is a conflict of interest as described by the citation in WP:QS. All of these requirements also disqualify the use of Breitbart.com and Shapiro's quote since it's not a high quality source, doesn't have multiple other high quality sources supporting it, is a conflict of interest, and rails against the prevailing view of the high regard that necessitates the existence and profession of film critics. Furthermore, we already know that a questionable source can be used to reliably quote the opinions of the author. However, this is still restricted to the rules of WP:QS and WP:Questionable that specifically say that " Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." Sorry, but your Shapiro quote violates multiple WP policies and NOTHING you've quoted addresses the numerous policies that such a quote violates. Also, regarding Kenn Hamm, all of those policies you cite also apply to Breitbart.com and Shapiro....as well as WP:QS, WP:Questionable, and WP:Aboutself. There are multiple policies that prohibit the use of both and all of those policies equally apply to both. Scoobydunk (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I quoted the portions that clearly dealt with attributed opinions, and refuted your position. The only portion of WP:EXCEPTIONAL that explicitly deals with attributed opinions, rather than facts or claims in Wikipedia's voice, is the bullet point, "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended". In that case the concern is accurately reporting the person's statement, not necessarily that person's claim itself being authoritative or credible. That treatment further supports my argument. I'll add that, regardless, no one has even presented a view contradicting Shapiro's, much less proof establishing that the opposing view is "prevailing within the relevant community" (which would be political pundits, btw). Certainly no evidence of "conflict of interest" has been presented, and it's unclear whether that would matter with an attributed opinion since we've quoted some involved with making the film (presumably we should just disclose the COI if Shapiro helped make the film, which he didn't). Also, Breitbart is a generally higher quality source and more prominent source than most of the others currently used for the section's opinions, which is obviously why you keep refusing to answer whether you consider the other sources, including the blogs your added, "QS". At least you're finally backpedaling from the notion that your interpretation of QS is necessary to prevent articles from being indiscriminately flooded with quotes, though the rest of your repetitive claims are nonsense that has already been debunked. VictorD7 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

typo to be corrected

In the section on Saul Alinsky, the name is given once as "Alinksy" which is a clear typo to be corrected. Collect (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – S. Rich (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for the opinion of Ben Shapiro

Breitbart.com editor-at-large Ben Shapiro in an opinion column at that site stated:

It is absurd to have [leftist] movie critics critiquing the politics of documentaries professionally; they seem unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones.”[29]
  1. Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for that statement?
  2. Is the statement violative of WP:BLP per se? 00:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

These appear to be the issues regarding [30]. Collect (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong question. Are Shapiro's writings in the site a reliable source that he says the left controls Hollywood, critics are biased, universities brainwash children, the U.S. president is a criminal, global warming is a hoax? Yes. Should we post Shapiro's views to every article about every topic he writes about? No. TFD (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that Shapiro can be referenced per WP:BIASED? The RFC is just for this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 04:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This RFC doesn't address whether the Shapiro quote should be included, is what I believe TFD, myself, and others are saying. This RFC is another poorly structured attempt to try and include material from a questionable source into an article, thus effectively ignoring multiple WP policies. Furthermore, Shapiro's writings could be referenced per WP:Biased if they are written in a source that is considered reliable. Breitbart.com is not considered a reliable source and therefore WP:Biased does not apply to the quote currently in dispute.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes - Obviously Breitbart is RS for its own attributed, quoted opinions, just like the last RFC found. The section is dedicated to covering attributed, subjective opinions, and contains such quotes from sources like the Daily Kos, Media Matters, Salon.com, etc.. No rational basis has been presented for singling out Breitbart and trying to exclude its author's opinion (which is shared by a massive chunk of the population), especially since Ben Shapiro is actually notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, unlike most of the other pundits quoted. Doing so would make this article fail in its task to honestly cover the reaction to the movie, and would constitute a gross WP:NPOV violation.

2. No - It's not a biography of a living person, but a subjective opinion about the state of a profession, used in a section full of subjective opinions about people and other things. It's certainly not libelous or defamatory. The sleazy personal attacks on D'Souza regarding his legal issues (and marital ones in the sources) by the Huffington Post bloggers currently featured in the same section come far closer to being a BLP concern. VictorD7 (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reliable as opinion of notable person, and
  • Does not make any "contentious claim" about individuals, but about a large class of people Clear. The opinions of notable persons are allowed even if in a "self-published source" which this is not. BLP protects individuals and small groups from "contentious claims", but the group involved here is a large group. And averring bias is not specifically a "contentious claim" in any event. Collect (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the statement that professional critics are not competent to have written their published works could reasonably viewed as contentious. In the context of this article, WP readers could take that to be an expert judgment as to the professional qualifications of specific individuals whose reviews are cited here. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting claim if that were what Shapiro said. As it is not what he said, it is not precisely on point here. What he said is that they seem to carry a political bias into their reviews. I seriously doubt anyone actually demurs that such occurs. Collect (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of this thread, we can use your paraphrase if you prefer it to mine. The issue and the policy concern remain the same. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not violate BLP. First it is about a group and second we can report negative things that people say, even if they are untrue. There is a very good reason to exclude the source (weight) and we should not get distracted about every possible policy that can be used to exclude it. TFD (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sensible statement of the issue, TFD. Given context and credentials of this writer, the statement is basically a casual opinion and not noteworthy enough to include in the article. It's also a bit off topic, really. The article is not about the state of what passes for film criticism in the mass media and at any rate that's not an area of expertise for Mr. Shapiro. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broken RFC. The question should be whether there's a consensus to include this quote that I've been told is not specifically about this movie. A number of people have stated that the quote is about movie critics generally, and how Breitbart thinks they're too liberal to do their jobs. This is just embedding a shot at "liberal" movie critics in an article about a specific individual movie. Asking whether Ben Shapiro's words on Breitbart.com are verifiably his own, does not answer if the material is suitable for the article. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second the objections to the wording of this RFC. It's clear that this is another attempt to game the system, which is exactly what happened with the last RFC. Editors are asked if something can be used, then their affirmative answers are used by ideologues to claim a mandate that their preferred material should be used, despite the multiple policy-based objections voiced by numerous editors. Gamaliel (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal attacks on motivation are completely false. You tried to delete both segments based on specific policy claims, and in both RFCs those policy claims are put directly to the wider community. VictorD7 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may not like the question presented in the RfC but that doesn't make it broken. The Shapiro's quote ALREADY had consensus and was removed because of an accusation of BLP problems. If the BLP problems are not valid then a consensus will be needed to remove the quote (not to add it), because it already had consensus to add. --Obsidi (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When there are more people objecting to the worth and wording of the RfC question than !voting, then it is broken. If this was supposed to settle whether to include the material in the article, it should have asked that question. When the wording was questioned, the proposer insisted there would be no negotiation. It looks like this quote wasn't in a single stable form for an entire month, so it's not correct to say there was any kind of stable consensus to include it. It looks like it was challenged by multiple editors, citing policies not covered by this RfC. No one can point to this mess as a mandate to include it now. Any closer should see that a question of whether something is verifiable does not speak to whether it has found a consensus to be included. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I count ( at most) four actual opposes here -- but they account for 80% of the verbiage <g>. And which policy based argument do you have against including an opinion from a notable person? Policies count for more than "IDONTLIKEIT/HIM" last I checked in closing any RfC. As opposed to six short supports. Collect (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading numbers. Since you seem to be including people who would prefer to exclude the source as "supports" in the RfC, I'll take that as an admission that this RfC isn't about whether to include the material. It's patently obvious that the material is verifiable as the opinion of someone, but that has nothing to do with its inclusion. Asserting that people haven't made multiple, specific policy-based objections to the material at this point in the discussion, is pretty brazen.

Multiple RS/N threads have found this source challenged as questionable source. WP:QUESTIONABLE says that questionable sources shouldn't be used for contentious statements about groups, even ill-defined ones, with people living or dead. This is true no matter how verifiable the opinions may be. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll repeat a bit of basic perspective on the issue I made further down in the discussion, if someone wanted to add the opinion, "All negative reviews were because those reviewers were conservative", to any individual Michael Moore film, we'd require a lot more than a single opinion piece in a highly challenged source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man argument - the quote is from a notable person and is not comparable to your example, nor to your example of "'Mr X eats children" either. Can we stick to the quote at issue instead of ridiculous and inapt comparisons please? Collect (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]
If you want to stick to a pertinent issue, then you can explain why you weren't open to modifying the question used in the RfC, despite multiple editors saying your wording was "poorly structured", the "wrong question", created a "broken RfC", and that this focus distracts from a straightforward discussion on inclusion. This RfC is about bare verifiability, not appropriateness or consensus to include, and that's why there's so few clear !votes.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issues stated in the RfC were the issues stated clearly by those opposing the material. The purpose of an RfC is to determine whether there are legitimate policy-based arguments against the material. It is not a popularity contest for the material, and one may note the exact same people who objected to any use of Breitbart in the article at all are still the only ones objecting here. And the wall-of-text "this is a bad RfC" is used frequently in Wikipedia, and is justly derided when the same people !vote the exact same way for any use of the same source - it is clearly IDONTLIKEIT in extremis. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an AfD so adding material in bold or caps that everyone is using one of the arguments to avoid in AfDs is silly and distracting. "IDONTLIKEIT" is not a fair assessment of the multiple policy objections you've clearly seen, and explicitly responded to and argued against in this thread. It's WP:IDHT behavior to act like you haven't been in discussions you clearly have been in. Your argument admits that including this material is contentious, and has been contentious. It's contentious for more reasons than your argument admits here. If the RfC is supposed to address people's objections, then it should have covered more of people's policy-based objections, instead of structuring it as a question of simple verifiability. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Breitbart has already been decided on this very talk page to be usable for opinions cited as opinion. So much for that. Nor have I said the material is a "contentious claim" covered by WP:BLP - and, in fact, I had thought you already conceded that point above. Now what actual policy based objection is there? The one that Breitbart is extremist? Failed already. That is is not a reliable source for opinions from notable people? Already failed. The claim that I have not participated in discussions here? Absurd. What is left? IDONTLIKEIT is the only one. Collect (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Theoretically usable in some contexts" is not equivalent to "guaranteed usable in all contexts". No source is considered blanket usable for all of its "opinions cited as opinion", in all future contexts, and for different opinions, with different authors, to support different material. This is a clearly unsupportable argument. Now, you bizarrely say The claim that I have not participated in discussions here? Absurd. as a weird response to my statement that you've clearly participated in discussions. Do you understand how this is a 180 degree misreading? You're repeating your arguments, and adding new misreadings into the mix, so, again, since this seems to be devolving into more badgering by you when I was responding to another editor, I'll disengage.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and it is getting quite old to keep trying wear down the opposition in this manner. Arzel (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Shapiro quote be included in the article? would be a more neutral and non-useless question to request comments on.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question was precisely stated in accord with your posts at the appropriate noticeboard. Changing your mind as to what the issue is when the RfC was clearly called for by your stated position is "moving the goalposts" a bit too far. You stated that the source was not a "reliable source" and that the quote violated WP:BLP so that is why the issue is so stated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The framing of the RFC question has no direct correspondence with any post I've made at any noticeboard, and was not negotiated previous to opening the RFC. As written, it doesn't answer whether it's suitable for the article. And you are misrepresenting what I said and ascribing words to me I never used. I never said the source could never be a reliable source for anything ever. It's patently obvious that any website is a generally reliable source for verifying what it puts on its website. Forum posts are "reliable sources" that someone once made a forum post. A subject's website obviously verifies what's found on a subject's website. Asking this in the form of an RfC is completely time-wasting and useless for determining if it's appropriate as a reliable source for the specific material in the context of this article. Maybe someone could make an argument that this might be a valid reliable source to find material for the article Ben Shapiro, but this is a different article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC is neutrally worded, and RfCs are not "negotiated".
Quoting from your posts: There's no indication that Breitbart is a usable source for article material from its editorials which is specifically a denial of it being RS for its opinions expressed as opinions.
This is an article about a specific movie, not a place to opine about "the state of a profession" generally, or adding material criticizing named movie critics because the questionable source, breitbart.com, doesn't like their politics. (And BLP applies everywhere, not just in specific biographies again states that you deny Breitbart is a reliable source for its own opinions expressed as opinions, and that you find the quote to violate WP:BLP.
This does not look like a high-quality source for article material. It's political invective from a minority source aimed at named people.) again states that it is not RS and that it violates WP:BLP.
The citation of opinions from questionable sources about living people is still subject to BLP and RS. An opinion about a movie is simply a different thing than an opinion about people. If the source is questionable, then there is no difference between adding "Mr X eats children" and adding "It is the opinion of Questionable Weekly that Mr. X eats children." is again your precise quote stating that Breitbart is not RS for opinions cited as opinions, that it violates WP:BLP and you imply that saying critics can be biased is the same as saying "Mr. X eats children." which I find to be a quite entertaining form of argument.
You further opined "Breitbart was not determined to be a reliable source for all claims. It's questionable for claims about living people." Again raising the issue of whether it is RS for anything at all, and also that the quote violates WP:BLP.
Now I have shown you repeatedly making the precise same arguments which you appear to disremember making. This RfC was specifically written to determine whether those repeated arguments are, in fact, supported by a consensus of editors here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by all of those quotes. Your repeated interpretations that they somehow mean I said that Breitbart could never be used as a source for its own opinions is completely mistaken, however. You ignore that I actually said It could theoretically be considered a reliable source for article content for some of its opinions, not all of them. You are repeatedly painting my opinion that this source shouldn't be used for certain claims as a statement that it could never be used for any claim at all.

You seem to have a serious problem with the concept that sources aren't automatically found to be reliable or usable for all claims if they happen to be considered usable for one. You're acting as if it was decided that we can use all opinions on Breitbart about people when that clearly isn't true or advisable. You also ignore this thread where I say it's possible it could be a reliable source for an article more specific to Ben Shapiro. Saying you somehow tailored the wording to my concerns is clearly wrong, as the RfC question is essentially asking whether we think Breitbart impersonated Ben Shapiro or something equally unlikely and equally useless for the purposes of discussion. Other editors have expressed problems with your wording along these lines. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm surprised you seem opposed to wording an RfC based on a direct "Should we use this material in this article?" I don't see what possible objection a person could have to this, as the first wording does not address the other significant issues raised about this material. An answer to your proposed RfC question still wouldn't indicate whether we'd choose to use the material in the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I cited what you said you did not say. The issues you raised were specifically about whether Breitbart is a reliable source for opinions stated as opinions and whether the opinion at hand violates WP:BLP. Which is what this RfC is about. As for your claim that Breitbart could fake Shapiro's opinions or the like or whether he could say Mr. X eats children - I regard such arguments as being useless on Wikipedia utterly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You cited what I said, then said it proved I said something else entirely, and that it was more extreme then what I actually did say. As for your claim that Breitbart could fake Shapiro's opinions Ha, that's silly. I never claimed this. Nobody could reasonably believe this. That's why having an RfC about how verifiable Shapiro's words are as Shapiro's words is a waste of time. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your exact words: If the source is questionable, then there is no difference between adding "Mr X eats children" and adding "It is the opinion of Questionable Weekly that Mr. X eats children." The source has repeatedly been found to be a reliable source for opinions cited as opinions. Repeatedly - including on the BLP/N noticeboard, the RS/N noticeboard, and on this talk page. And the accusation that averring bias in reviews is equivalent to saying "Mr X eats children" is a mighty fail. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was a theoretical example you're misrepresenting as if I said it was more than that. So twist, twist away, but policy, WP:RS, still treats opinions about third parties differently than opinions about less sensitive topics. You're saying Breitbart has been found usable in articles for all of its "opinions cited as opinions", and that's patently false. No source can be whitelisted for all contexts, and especially not when it involves third party people. You can't eliminate the question of context. As far as the noticeboards, you are cherry-picking a few supportive comments to represent a non-existent consensus, and ignoring the obvious policy challenges.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting someone exactly and precisely is not a "mischaracterization" by a few miles. And the RS/N results and the result on this very talk page are clear - that you aver I said something "patently false" is a direct violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA and I urgently suggest you redact those offensive words. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The mischaracterization of my words took place in your added editorial, not in the quotation of my words. Saying that you have said something I believe is not true is not a personal attack by any standard, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Nor does it mean I said you were acting in bad faith without an honest motivation of trying to make a better encyclopedia (from your own point of view) when you asserted it. You are reading arguments into my words that are not supported by the words themselves. I think you are wrong in asserting that sources that many editors believe questionable can be used for any opinion they have, including commentary on third party living people. There are long-standing limits, and this is partly covered by WP:QS. You repeated on multiple occasions here that any word I uttered meant that I was saying that sources could never be used for "opinions cited as opinions". This isn't true. (It's not a personal attack to say this isn't true) I pointed out that I had argued against that interpretation of policy, but that still doesn't mean they can be used for all opinions cited as opinions, without regard to context. Breitbart is not whitelisted for any opinion they publish in articles not about Breitbart; this is supported by policy and shouldn't be a contentious point.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You made a personal attack on me. I cited your exact words, which is more than I can say for you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that I thought you were wrong is not a personal attack. (If it was, you'd have made a lot of personal attacks.) Disagreeing with you is not against policy. You added personal interpretations and commentary on my words beyond the quotes. I feel that added interpretation mischaracterizes my arguments. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You specifically wrote: And you are misrepresenting what I said and ascribing words to me I never used which seems to be clearly a personal attack on me. Any words I "ascribed to you" were, indeed, your exact words. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And? This is still not a personal attack. I can think your arguments are based on a false characterization (and say so) without it being a claim about you personally. We're all wrong sometimes. You said You stated that the source was not a "reliable source" and that the quote violated WP:BLP... I certainly never said the word "violated". You do later ascribe that word to me in connection to all quotes where we're talking about what BLP says. I also never said the source could not be used as an RS in all contexts. This is an essential point that you omitted from your later characterizations of my argument. Arguing that I'm taking an extremist or absolutist stand is a mischaracterization, whatever your motive, assuming both good faith and the possibility of error. Pointing out your mistaken ascription is not a personal attack. I can assume that maybe you confused me with someone else when you wrote your first sentence regarding "violated", and none of your later quotations prove your assertion that I think the source could never be used as a source sometimes, in other contexts. Your characterizations of my arguments are directly contradicted by what I said, explicitly, at the start of this, It could theoretically be considered a reliable source for article content for some of its opinions, not all of them. It wasn't correct to suggest my position was otherwise.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might you cite my precise words where I said you took an "extremist stand"? I do not recall so characterizing you at all, and I would like to see my exact words making that claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Yikes) Your edit summary indicates that your standards for what constitutes a "personal attack" do not correspond with any policy you linked to. Criticizing your arguments is not a personal attack. If re-explaining where I think you've made an error would only be misinterpreted as further "attack" and lead to additional accusations of bad faith, then the discussion and Wikipedia is probably better off if do not engage you further on what I think are your mistakes. This remains a flawed RfC that doesn't address whether the material should be included.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:QS already says that questionable sources can be reliable for material about themselves, that doesn't mean it can be included onto articles not about themselves. For the second question, "Yes" it violates multiple parts of WP:BLP which is not the only policy relevant to its inclusion or omission. Here are the multiple parts of BLP that apply to this quote directly:
"Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies" This specific quote does not strictly adhere to WP's three core content policies which specifically state that questionable sources can not make contentious claims about others.
"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Here Breitbart.com can be considered as poorly sourced just like tabloids are considered poor sources.
"When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." Breitbart.com is certainly not a high-quality source and shouldn't be used to make claims about others.
"Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." The Breitbart.com is not a reliable source for making contentious claims about others.
"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." Breitbart.com fails to meet many Verifiability standards.

Many of these policies are repeated multiple times throughout the article and the Shapiro quote only needs to satisfy one of them to be a violation of WP:BLP, let alone numerous other policies that the inclusion of the Shapio quote violates.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above claims have been found wanting both at the appropriate noticeboards and on this very talk page - twice now. I rather think they are dead issues by this point, even if presented in walls of text. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion on what's "wanting" is not relevant to the fact that Breitbart.com is a questionable source by nearly every standard outlined by WP:QS. Making baseless assertions is not constructive to the conversation. So, if you're not going to bother making logically valid arguments and insist on just dismissing policies and proof, then I suggest you move along. Cheers.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Scoobydunk, your QS arguments have been rejected by an RFC and refuted in discussions in above sections, but your BLP claims are especially comical since you were the one who added the partisan Huffington Post bloggers personally attacking D'Souza over a sensitive legal issue and (falsely) claiming his assertions had no support. Also, you apparently support the inclusion of far left blogs like the Daily Kos, Salon.com, and Media Matters, and have dodged every attempt to get your answer on the record as to whether such sources are allowable here under your interpretation of QS. VictorD7 (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, they haven't been rejected, they've been ignored since you and other editors think you can completely ignore WP policy and forumshop until you get the answers you want. Furthermore, I don't need to entertain red herring arguments. We are currently discussing Breitbart.com and it's individual merits or lack thereof, not any of the other sources. I don't entertain logical fallacies, while it's clear that's all you have to offer.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've already linked to my own arguments refuting your QS argument and quoted and linked to the RFC closer stating that the community wasn't persuaded by your argument. Also, a discussion of the other sources is extremely vital here for consistency (neutrality), especially since you personally added the Huffington Post quotes (and possibly some others), and since due weight depends in part on context (e.g. How much coverage have we given other views?). Your continuing dodging and false accusations against other posters only undermine your assertions. VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments did nothing to refute my arguments and the RFC closer doesn't dictate WP policies. I don't have to persuade others with my argument if it is supported by WP policy and IT IS. Also, "No", other sources are not relevant to the reliability of Breitbart.com. Nothing in WP:QS defines a source as questionable based on comparing it to other publications, but defines based on it's own actions and merits. So you're making a red herring argument while also entertaining a false equivalency. I do not undermine my own argument, as it's been logically consistent and inline with WP policies since the beginning. However, your constantly changing the nature of your arguments, forumshopping, and misrepresenting what others have said do undermine your own arguments. Scoobydunk (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether your arguments have been refuted, whether your interpretation of policy is incorrect, and whether your continuing refusal to answer whether you think the section's other sources are QS, including the blogger quotes you personally added, is relevant from an WP:NPOV standpoint and for fully assessing the merits of your position. VictorD7 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the so called policy arguments (RS and BLP) have evaporated, and this is merely a question of weight and editorial judgment, what legitimate argument against inclusion is there? Here you have a notable best selling author and editor of one the internet's most widely read news sites author an entire article about the reception to this movie, so of course it's relevant, especially given the massive expansion of political commentary coverage undertaken in this section. That coverage mostly features "contentious" political commentary from sources more fringe and pundits less noteworthy than Shapiro. The belief that most pro film critics are leftists and this colors their reaction to movies is almost universally shared by conservatives, and frankly not something I've seen many liberals or film critics themselves deny. The reviews of this film themselves are invariably political. If we're covering the political reaction to this film at all, which we undeniably are (the section set aside for this is explicitly titled "Political commentary"), this perspective carries enormously significant weight and must be represented. There's no evidence that it's a "minority" view, much less a view so fringe that it doesn't merit coverage at all. It's also common for Wikipedia film articles, especially ones with some controversial aspects, to include pundit opinions about the reception itself, as I've shown on this talk page before. The claim that there's something wrong with supposedly commenting on the reception rather than just the movie per se is wrong and without basis in policy. The vital policy at play here is Neutrality, which would be grossly violated by heavily quoting from leftist sources, as the section currently does, while excluding noteworthy conservative commentary. Are we going to start holding RFCs on whether to include controversial quotes from far left sources like the Daily Kos, Salon.com, Media Matters, the Huffington Post, etc..? Is every quote and proposed new addition now going to be challenged for months on end? There is simply no legitimate reason to exclude Breitbart or any other prominent source of opinions here. Let's provide complete, honest coverage of opinions relating to this movie from across the major components of the political spectrum. Be open minded. Live and let live. Purging the page of cherry-picked views in one sided fashion would prevent this article from ever stabilizing or accomplishing its task of providing full, encyclopedic coverage of the issue. VictorD7 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Breitbart.com is a political website. There is no reason to include a quote from the a source like breitbart, rather they are reliable for their own quote or not. The movie should be covered with sources that are like other movies. WP:Deadhorse Casprings (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does not answer the question presented in the RfC. --Obsidi (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a worthless RFC as it does not get to the point of if it should be in there or not.Casprings (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC directly addresses the policy reasons given for attempting to delete it. Besides, an alternative RFC along the lines you suggest would have to ask "Should it be removed?", since the last consensus was to include it. VictorD7 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the movie itself is a political one. (The same is true for the book.) And both the movie and book have had some measure of impact on the political landscape. With this in mind the opinion of Shapiro is WP:NOTEWORTHY. – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A far right wing guy being mad a far right wing movie is panned is not noteworthy. And if it was, it would have been picked up by another source that isn't like same as his own.Casprings (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IOW, the viewpoint of the person whose opinion is being used overrides whether that viewpoint is from a notable person? Source in policy for that position? And why would another source have illegally printed a copyrighted column? Collect (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think other people beside Wikipedia can use fair use. If the quote was imported, it would have been covered.Casprings (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Casprings, WP:BIASED says that sources can be reliable in the specific context, including a political one. WP:RSOPINION is also applicable here. It may seem "obvious" that a conservative commentator would challenge reviews of the film, but it also could have been the opposite where the commentator could have stated that the film was not representative of U.S. conservatism. Ben Shapiro is a conservative figure who has written for the National Review about conservatism and media (film/TV), so his opinion is worth referencing to show the conservative viewpoint here. Per WP:DUE, Shapiro's passage is marginal compared to the mainstream passages that have been added to the article in the past month. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSOPINION gives the example of opinions sourced from "mainstream newspapers". That's not this. WP:BIASED still says When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Adding a view described as "marginal" and non-mainstream is discouraged by WP:DUE, not encouraged. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Shapiro is editor-at-large for Breitbart. I'm not sure how fact-checking should be applied here, though, since it is political criticism of art criticism. When I say "marginal", I mean a minority view. WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." This is why I'm supportive of including the Shapiro quote in a very limited sense, especially when we have covered the mainstream viewpoints in major detail. The Shapiro quote is only part of the big picture. So in other words, I am saying that Breitbart is a representative viewpoint of U.S. conservatism. Would we be okay with including the passage if it was published at National Review or FOX News? Is it the nature of the website itself? I see that it has been called "fringe" and "far right", but I am not seeing it as different from the aforementioned sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need to stick to the subject of this encyclopedia article. This is an article about a single film. Whatever the merits or noteworthiness of Shapiro's opinions, inserting them here creates a kind of WP:SYNTH suggestion that the unfavorable reviews cited here should be disregarded as biased or otherwise flawed film criticism. Shapiro's views might be cited in an article about film criticism, politics, mass media, or other relevant topics, but they are not suitable for this article. Neither, for example, would the opinions about an optical engineer about the lamentable state of local theater digital projection systems on which the film was shown. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested in a Wikipedia article about the political ideology of film criticism. :) Coverage in regard to Zero Dark Thirty would definitely be part of that. However, WP:SYNTH does not apply here. The article is full of mainstream viewpoints (balanced their way, obviously), and the Shapiro passage would be a small part balance-wise. I expanded the sampling of the reviews to flesh out each critic's response since the political and art criticism are sort of blended together, and readers can see why the mainstream thinks the documentary is not a good one. The presence of the Shapiro quote does not mean that all the heavily-emphasized viewpoints are to be dismissed. If there is a concern about Shapiro coming across as too much of an authority on the matter, then we can identify Breitbart as a conservative outlet to be more clear-cut, so readers can draw whatever conclusion they want from a partisan's opinion that is placed on the back-end of the commentary. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that goes beyond "What people thought of the movie" and is instead "what people think of the state of movie reviewers generally" is arguably tangential to the scope of this article. If we add what Shapiro thinks of movie critics generally, do we balance that with what mainsteam reliable sources think of movie critics generally? I don't think the balanced common view is that movie critics should be disallowed from reviewing whole classes of movies on ideological grounds. You can't balance that fringe viewpoint with reviews of the movie. That could only be theoretically balanced by even more off-topic discussion specifically about the state of movie criticism from multiple RS who represent the non-fringe view.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Are you saying there needs to be counter-criticism to Shapiro's criticism? In addition, how do you assess Breitbart in comparison with National Review and FOX News? Are they considered "fringe" viewpoints too, or just Breitbart? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it needs off-topic meta-criticism on either side at all. It would require counter-meta-criticism if it were included, to be balanced, but that's why it's not helpful for it to be included in the first place. The "fringe view" I mentioned was contained in the specific quote; publishers aren't "fringe views". I think the usability of a source is often dependent on three things, (content, author, publisher), in context. A reliable publisher can often be more easily relied on to have chosen more representative and considered opinions. A questionable publisher might publish the least useful commentary from an otherwise arguably useful source. If Stephen Hawking does a guest bit on South Park, I wouldn't rely solely on the reliability of the author, and ignore the venue or context of the material.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And to put this into this some kind of perspective, if someone wanted to add the opinion, "All negative reviews were because those reviewers were conservative", to any individual Michael Moore film, we'd require a lot more than a single opinion piece in a highly challenged source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik. I disagree. Readers can reasonably be expected to relate Shapiro's view to the specific critics/reviews cited in the article. That is SYNTH. If Shapiro had given explicit rebuttals to the cited reviews, that would be entirely different. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Can you write what conclusion you think a reader could take away? The reviews panned the film, period. Shapiro says the negative reviews are politically biased, period. Is it a matter of placement that causes the implication? Shapiro could go into "Political commentary" instead. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already given one example of such an inference above. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Readers can reasonably be expected to relate Shapiro's view to the specific critics/reviews cited in the article." Is this what you mean? We can specify the reviews that Shapiro mentions -- the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, and McClatchy news service. Like I said, it can also be placed in the "Political commentary" to avoid any intra-section comparing. Is that not feasible? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The claim of "SYNTH" is absurd. No material is being combined from different sources in the quote. VictorD7 (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that an alternate analysis is "absurd" does not promote resolution. If the combination were "in the quote" that would not be synth. Please review WP:SYNTH and reflect. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly need to read it. WP:SYNTH concerns implying something not said by the source, either through combining different sources or mixing and matching material from a single source in a misleading way. The segment in question, from a single source, does neither. What do you allege the quote is implying that Shapiro didn't say or imply himself? VictorD7 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Victor, I have already explained that twice above on this page. Please read and reload. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed readers might infer he was talking about the specific reviews in the above section, and that readers might infer they should disregard them due to Shapiro's comments. Our only concern regarding SYNTH here is to make sure the meaning of Shapiro's comments aren't distorted. They clearly aren't. As Erik pointed out, Shapiro was talking about negative reviews in general for this film, saying they should be taken with a grain of salt due to the politicization at play in the reception. Whether that causes readers to place credence in what Shapiro says and maybe take the critics with a grain of salt or not shouldn't be your concern, and has nothing to do with SYNTH. Shapiro cites several specific examples, but not most of the critics named in the above section. Claiming that a reader might mistakenly assume Shapiro is discussing a specific critic named above and that the segment is therefore "SYNTH" is beyond a reach; it's wrong because we're using Shapiro's general commentary about the profession's leftward tilt. If we had quoted from some of his specific commentary about a certain critic (complete with pronouns like "He"), but left out that critic's name and placed it under a different critic's quote, then you might have a SYNTH argument, since we would be misleadingly implying he was discussing someone other than whom he was. But we didn't. Shapiro's general comments cover the reception in general (including the negative reviews we use), and stand accurately transmitted on their own. No SYNTH. VictorD7 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, no evidence has even been presented establishing that Shapiro's view is a "minority" one, since I've seen no one dispute it (certainly not his claim that most critics lean left), and I could produce sources agreeing with it (WND, Newsbusters, etc..). As for opinion on the film itself, the "mainstream" view of pro critics is mostly negative, the "mainstream" view of political pundits (a group which includes Shapiro, as well as the writers/guest writers at The Atlantic, Forbes, The National Journal, USNaW Report, etc.) is likely roughly split in half along party lines (the coverage is currently skewed heavily left, which I intend to correct through additions in the long run), and the "mainstream" view of almost everyone who actually watched the movie is overwhelmingly positive (hence the historically rare high CinemaScore grade and strong box office showing for a documentary). VictorD7 (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you plan to "correct through additions"? The current sources are mainly mainstream. There's still the National Review pieces by Jay Nordlinger to discuss for inclusion, but beyond that, I was not finding any more additional commentary about the documentary. In addition, audience reception should not be used as a factor to "balance" the article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How are you defining "mainstream"? I'm not sure how "mainstream" applies to political commentary outside of being widely read and/or prominent. You've quoted several specific political commentators, most of them liberals. There are many prominent conservative commentators who have given views on this film too (I already mentioned WND and Newsbusters as sources, you cited NRO; I could mention The Blaze and others) and almost none of them are included. The set of political commentators is different from the set of pro critics; in the former the majority view is not negative, at least not clearly so. Our coverage should therefore reflect more balance in the Political commentary section than we do in the Critics' section. VictorD7 (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Yes Brietbart is a reliable source for its own opinions cited as opinions when it does not involve BLP issues. WP:BLPGROUP specifies that this is not a BLP issue as the group that is being talked (movie critics) is large. As such Brietbart is a reliable source for this statement as it is attributed to Brietbart.
2. No This is not a BLP problem as WP:BLPGROUP for which BLP applies to small groups but not large groups. This is a large group being talked about. --Obsidi (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why insist on using a source that has a poor reputation and a quote from the editor of the source with a bad reputation? If the point is to get the opinion of conservatives on the movie, there are plenty of options. I don't grasp the need to include a source with such a bad reputation for fact checking and then have the comment come from the editor in chief. Why not include what Rush Limbraugh said, which was picked up by the hollywood reporter, for example. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/audio-rush-limbaugh-predicts-dinesh-716217 Casprings (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has to do with the content of the Shapiro quote. Shapiro is saying that the film has gotten negative reviews because of liberal bias. Limbaugh's not saying that here. We already have some commentary from Breitbart (Christian Toto and Kate O'Hare) as well as National Review (John Fund), but they do not say anything about a liberal bias behind the negative reviews. The "Reception" section also already highlights that conservatives are "thrilled" with the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the larger point. So we already have the minority viewpoint represented. Prehaps over represented by WP:UNDUE. Now we are going to add a quote by an outlet that has a terriable reputation that bascially says, "they only reviewed it that way because they are partisan hacks." If one include something by them commenting on the reviews of others, is media matters okay to point out that conservatives endorced a film based on a book that openly says blacks are better off because of slavery? http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/07/09/five-media-figures-who-endorse-dinesh-dsouzas-r/200046 Casprings (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Breitbart doesn't have a "poor reputation", especially compared to most of the section's other sources, and, as Erik said, our job is to cover the salient contours of opinion, not simply repeat ourselves with different sources. There are other sources making the point Shapiro does, but he's the most noteworthy pundit on the most prominent platform to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorD7 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that any source that is not explicitly conservative is inversely liberal? You seem to be dismissing everything in the article body that is not conservative. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that all views should be represented by WP:Weight. I think if anything, there is an over representation of positive reviews. I think we should simply have text that is representative of the overall reception of the film. Keep it simple. That said, if you are going to include a source that has such a negative reputation that basically says, “everyone that reviewed this movie badly did so because they were liberals”, is it not fair to also include a viewpoint about the motive or meaning of those who reviewed it positively? Is it not fair to also include the commentary from media matters? Casprings (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was directed at VictorD7, not you. I added commentary to the article from mainstream sources, but these seem to be dismissed as liberal. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary from Media Matters is included. And no, we can't prohibit a view from the article just because no one disagrees with it. If anything, that bolsters its case for inclusion. But at a more nuanced level most of the quoted opinions included don't have direct counterpoints, so a consistent application of your principle would require us to wipe out most or all of the reception sections. And no, while the pro critics' reaction skewed negative the "overall" reaction to the film was positive, and the political pundit reaction was roughly half and half. VictorD7 (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone has some type of political viewpoint, especially if they're writing political commentary. And I'm not "dismissing" anyone, but I want the landscape of political reaction to the film to be properly covered per NPOV, rather than heavily skewed. The politics of the people you chose to quote aren't exactly hard to discern. You didn't reply to my above comment, so I'll repeat that I'm still not sure how you're defining "mainstream" in this context. For example, the National Journal, a liberal leaning political magazine, has a circulation of about 15,000 and is ranked 3113 in the US by Alexa internet traffic monitoring. National Review has a circulation of about 166,000 and is ranked 1166 in the US by Alexa. Breitbart is ranked 494 in the US by Alexa, and the author in question is a notable best selling author whose views are considered to be in the American mainstream. In fact the liberal outlets currently quoted include The Guardian, Salon.com, National Journal (Simon van Zuylen-Wood in particular used to write for the The New Republic and Salon.com), Daily Kos, Media Matters, The Huffington Post, Nicole Hemmer (a professor whose entire career is dedicated to marginalizing and defining conservatives in ways more palatable to liberals than themselves), The Daily Beast (a sampling from Andrew Ramona in particular), and Gabe Toro (just read his review, or his Twitter feed; his next to most recent Tweet refers to the "dimwits at Fox News"; for the record, Alinsky praised Lucifer; D'Souza didn't raise the issue on his own, contrary to Toro's idiotic and misleading piece). I don't want to derail this section, but at times you seem to be implying a difference between "mainstream" and "political", so I'd appreciate clarification on how you're using these terms. VictorD7 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you have some evidence that Breitbart isn't accurately relaying its own editor's words, like Shapiro saying so in another venue, then the correct answer is "Yes". Do you have any such evidence? If not, your comment amounts to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, and should be dismissed. VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TMDrew: What is it that you believe Shapiro would have mentioned? That his employer's website was not accurately stating his opinion? Could you rephrase your view on this in a way that doesn't entail your view as to what Shapiro would do under a hypothetical scenario? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His statement seems clear to me. VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 1 – Yes – Shapiro simply offers an opinion that seeks to describe the political leanings of other critics and thus undermine their objectivity as reviewers. Breitbart has an Alexa (international/US) ranking of 1,508/495, which is comparable to the other websites we see cited in the article. Mojo's is 3,048/1,622; Fandango's is 1,138/270; Metacritic's is 1,188/603; Salon's is 1,157/379. The fact that Breitbart per se is the vehicle for his opinion is immaterial in the RS analysis. Every media outlet has had problems with thruthiness, some more than others. (Outlets often have "corrections" features.) Their failures, and even distortions, in other news stories does not keep this particular opinion from being WP:NOTEWORTHY.
Question 2 – No – As I stated before this RFC was posted, Shapiro may be critical of a certain "group" of critics, but WP:BLPGROUP is not written so that any "group" of people with similar characteristics comes within BLP restrictions.
With regard to E L A Q U E A T E's question – "Should the Shapiro quote be included in the article?" – my response is Yes. The movie is a political one, and political commentary is appropriate. Shapiro serves to "show" that some movie critics are "leftist", their leftiness skews their reviews, and their leftiness has skewed their reviews as to this particular movie. – S. Rich (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Srich, we don't use Alexa eyeball counts to determine what's noteworthy, nor to asses due weight or SYNTH. Web traffic counts certainly have nothing to do with the criteria for WP:RS references. Reciting alphabet soup wiki-links of inapplicable or miscast policy doesn't help resolve the issue at hand. SPECIFICO talk
  • No to the first question; Breitbart's poor reputation for fact checking alone would make it a questionable source, although I would also argue that it falls under a few other criteria, and the question of whether this opinion is relevant or not (which is part of what, in this context, we would be citing Breitbart for if it were the sole source) clearly amounts to a contentious claim about third parties. Yes to the second question; although, as WP:BLP says, applying BLP to groups must be done on a case-by-case basis, in this case it is clear that he is referring to a comparatively small group of people (specific critics, I believe). Some people (above) seem to be focused on whether a Breitbart commentator can be cited to show their own opinion in a context where that opinion is relevant, but this is only part of what WP:RS requires; we would also need a reliable source to show the relevance of that opinion, and as I mentioned, Breitbart itself is a textbook questionable source and therefore cannot be used for that in this context. Even beyond these issues, I concur with the numerous posts above indicating that this quote would be out-of-place in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP states that "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons", so the notion that these general comments would apply to the far bigger category of an entire profession is untenable. That said, even if they singled out one person, simply critiquing a publicly published work doesn't violate BLP anyway. If it did then the entire Reception section ([31], [32]) would violate BLP, as even (more like especially) the pro critics' statements are contentious, and certainly the other political commentary is. You presented no argument that Breitbart is any more "questionable" than the other sources used, which include blogs like the Daily Kos, Media Matters, Salon.com, etc., or for that matter The Atlantic, Indiewire, Slant (the very name is a red flag!), etc., nor did you explain why an alleged reputation for fact checking matters when we're merely quoting properly attributed, subjective, political opinions. Have you even read the sections? Removing one but not the others would be a huge WP:NPOV violation. VictorD7 (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Please include the following sentence and reference in the "Release" section between the sentence ending "with a total gross of $14,444,502" and the sentence starting "For 2014":

''[[The Hollywood Reporter]]'' said the gross was "a very strong showing for a documentary film".<ref>{{cite journal | last=Bond | first=Paul | url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gosnell-movie-adds-2016-director-757563 | title='Gosnell' Movie Adds '2016' Co-Director John Sullivan as Executive Producer | journal=[[The Hollywood Reporter]] | date=December 15, 2014 | accessdate=December 15, 2014 }}</ref>

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should Media Matters, Daily Kos and Breitbart be removed as sources for the Article?

1. Should content sourced by Media Matters be removed from the article? 2. Should content sourced by Breitbart.com be removed from the article? 3. Should content sourced by Daily Kos be removed from the article? Casprings (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Please restore your original "...standards of independence..." wording that I substantively replied to, so that my response doesn't look inexplicably out of context and people can follow the discussion. You can then draw a strike through the old language if you want, or simply leave it and state that you're changing your rationale below in a subsequent reply. VictorD7 (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. As for your new QS rationale, leaving aside the fact that Breitbart hasn't been established to be QS, QS deals with statements supporting facts in Wikipedia’s voice, not directly with quotes. Attributed opinions would fall under “material about themselves”, regardless of the quote’s internal content. Otherwise, virtually every source used in the section, most relying mostly or entirely on opinion (and with shady reputations among the opposite political camp), would be unacceptably “questionable”. Besides, the first RFC already established a consensus that Breitbart is RS for their professional critic’s statement here because it’s properly attributed, and as a pro critic Toto is explicitly considered RS by film guidelines anyway (as a published and widely cited political/media expert Shapiro is similarly also acceptable to quote regardless of where his particular article has been published). QS is a red herring. The pertinent sections are--WP:RSOPINION Sources not suitable for supporting facts in Wikipedia’s voice may be reliable if attribution is used.--WP:NEWSORG Non-authoritative statements of opinion (from non experts) aren't suitable for supporting statements of fact, but may be used if attributed.--WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Biased statements of opinion that can’t normally be used can be included with attribution. The policy concern is verifying that the source is accurately relaying the quote, not the merits or validity of the quote’s internal content.--WP:BIASED Politician Barry Goldwater, feminist activist Betty Friedan, and Marxist economist Harry Magdoff, all people not normally considered RS for facts in Wikipedia’s voice (except maybe some information about themselves), are listed as examples where attributed quotation makes inclusion ok.--Quotations Quotes should ideally be sourced to the original source, with a reliable secondary source being relied on only as a last resort if the original isn't available. Again, the concern is that the quote is accurately relayed, not the merits of the quote's contents.--WP:CONTEXTMATTERS “The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.” No one seriously disputes that Breitbart is RS for its own authors’ views, or that a section titled "Political commentary" should include the salient political commentary. And last but not least--WP:NPOV Our duty is to fully and neutrally cover the salient sides of a controversy, without excluding views from sources just because we dislike or disagree with them.
If Barry Goldwater, Betty Friedan, and Karl Marx, or for that matter Simon van Zuylen-Wood, Joe Leydon, Gabe Toro, and Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig can be quoted for their views on various topics, then so can Ben Shapiro, Christian Toto, and Kate O'Hare. No compelling, rational argument to the contrary exists. VictorD7 (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All articles should use high quality sources. Ample sources exist for general opinion on this topic from both sides of the political divide. Neither source provides something that can't be found elsewhere. However, if quality standards are relaxed enough to allow low quality conservative sources like Brietbart, then a similar relaxation should be allowed for sources from the opposite political position per NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Added Daily Kos to RFC
  • OPPOSE for the record, since absolutely no basis has been established for excluding Breitbart while leaving in opinions from blogs and opinionated, partisan sources like The Huffington Post, Salon.com, The Daily Beast, Indiewire and the others currently used, and since we should be covering the political reception relating to an explicitly political documentary, of which Breitbart, as the internet's most prominent news/opinion site, is an indispensable part. I also oppose the question wording for reasons given in the below subsection. We can't remove the primary conservative source while leaving the many leftist sources. I'll add that there's a lack of clarity as well. Does this RFC just cover the Political commentary section, or would the professional critic (Breitbart's Toto), whose inclusion has already been explicitly approved by an RFC, be removed as well? Would the more mundane use of Breitbart as a source elsewhere be purged too, requiring part of the article to be rewritten? Update: You just added "from the article", so unless you say otherwise, I'll assume you're including the review already explicitly approved by RFC, despite Toto's extensive credentials as a professional film critic and the innocuous comment used. I oppose even more strongly then. VictorD7 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ill Defined All of these are reliable sources for "opinion expressed as opinion". The article includes material which is cited as opinion, which is reasonable. MMFA, HuffPo and DailyKos etc. are primarily editorial in nature, while Breitbart also includes reportage. No RfC can redefine "reliable source" as that is a Wikipedia policy which RfCs may not override. The editorial claim here that Breitbart is not WP:RS is marginal, as, like all sources, the nature of a claim enters into whether it is reliable for Wikipedia purposes. On the basis of Wikipedia policy, none of the sources violate WP:RS for opinions cited as opinion, which would be the only way we could disallow them. Collect (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. I do not see how any of those sites even begin to meet our content standards. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What content standards are you referring to, Thargor Orlando? These are properly attributed opinions in a section explicitly dedicated to covering such opinions. Have you read the section? Would you leave in comments from bloggers at Salon.com, The Daily Beast, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, and the others that would remain? If not, then I'd respectfully suggest that you at least attach conditions on removing Breitbart, the primary conservative source used in a section already unreasonably skewed with leftist opinions, something like only if the other sources are removed as well. If so, then I'd suggest you read WP:NPOV. I'll add that this RFC is also a sneaky attempt to remove the professional critic quote in the above section dedicated to pro critics, despite it being explicitly approved via an earlier RFC. As a professional, widely cited film critic, Christian Toto's review certainly meets all the film content standards I'm aware of, and the political commentary by others is appropriate in covering the reaction to an explicitly political film. Don't be suckered by a vague, tactically slanted RFC that doesn't even link to the sections in question (at least three would be impacted by Breitbart's removal, and any pretense of neutrality would go flying out a 100 story window). VictorD7 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes/Yes/No No/Yes/Yes Media Matters can be treated as a reliable source, but Daily Kos and Breitbart cannot. The purpose of Media Matters is to monitor problems with the US right wing media. That involves activities like fact checking, so that one can expect that if Media Matters went significantly beyond the realm of facts into the realm of advocacy, it would get into trouble. Breitbart and Daily Kos on the other hand are all about advocating particular political views, so I am surprised that there is even a question about whether they can be treated as reliable sources by WP. Daily Kos is ostensibly progressive and Breitbart is conservative, so eliminating both of those should be acceptable to everyone in the spirit of compromise. There are plenty of sources cited in the article without those two. I see that Salon, which represents a liberal point of view, is cited. Unlike Daily Kos, Salon is a serious political news and opinion outlet. I understand that all of this is about opinion, so that it may appear not to be clear what is a reliable source here, but I think that everybody should be able to agree that the Atlantic or National review is a higher quality source than breitbart, or that Salon is a higher quality source than Daily Kos. – Herzen (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media Matters is a leftist propaganda outlet, as evidenced by its exclusive purpose being to "monitor" the "problems" with the "right wing media" (a "particular political view"), and it's routinely condemned and called out for misleading stories and outright lies. If anything, it's less legitimate as a source of prominent political punditry than the other sources are. Only hard core leftists take Media Matters seriously, and it's not a significant source of original news/opinion coverage like Breitbart is. Breitbart employs professional reporters, editors, and critics, while the Daily Kos is simply a group opinion blog. So is Salon. The section currently includes numerous opinions from leftist blogs and only a couple from conservative outlets, Breitbart being the most prominent. One of the professional film critics quoted even writes for Breitbart. So no, tossing out both the brief Kos quote and every Breitbart use is in no way, shape, or form an equitable or acceptable compromise. It would be a gross WP:NPOV violation. VictorD7 (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I have struck through my vote in response to your comment. I never visit any of those three Web sites, so I am willing to assume that your opinion is more informed here than my own, I am also willing to accept your claim that the "section currently includes numerous opinions from leftist blogs and only a couple from conservative outlets", and I have no problem with conservative opinion being equally represented with liberal opinion in this article. Even though the only piece I intend to read about this movie is the one from Salon.
P.S. I have changed my vote, to delete Media Matters and Daily Kos but not Breitbart. I am doing this out of Obama fatigue and as a gesture of good will, so that you know that some of us leftists are willing to reach out to people who think differently than we do. – Herzen (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant YES/NO/YES then. I don't necessarily support removing any of them, but I appreciate your gesture. VictorD7 (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the three are good encyclopedic sources; all three are questionable and should not be used. Breitbart is the worst, in that it has a well-documented track record of repeatedly damaging people's lives by publishing ideologically driven lies, and I seriously question the competence and judgement of any editor who finds this source appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The other two sources, while not quite as abysmal, are likewise partisan websites and should not be used except in rare and carefully circumscribed situations. MastCell Talk 04:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes to Breitbart utterly unreliable source for anything. Artw (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context matters when judging reliability... even repugnant sources like Adolf Hitler's Mein Kamph can be a reliable source in limited contexts. Essentially the entire "reception" section can be summerized as: "Liberal reviewers generally panned the movie, while conservative reviewers generally praised it."... In that context, the sources do reliably verify the statement.
That said... Does the article really need to say much more than that. I don't think so. Certainly there is no need to quote the various individual sources (whether liberal or conservative)... at best, the quotes should be relegated to the foot notes. Essentially, the issue here isn't one of reliability... its one of WEIGHT. By quoting individual sources, the article is giving too much WEIGHT to those individual sources. That is true on both sides of the political spectrum. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptably biased question wording

There is absolutely no basis for singling out two of the many sources used, lumping them together like that, and asking if they and only they should be removed. While I support the notion of an RFC here, I ask Casprings to adjust the question wording to something neutral that explains the common basis for removal like "Should opinionated sources be removed?" or "Should overtly political sources be removed?" At the very least more than Media Matters needs to be included. We can't remove Breitbart if we're leaving in the Daily Kos, Salon.com, Daily Beast, The Atlantic, The Huffington Post, and others. Update: I see you just added the Daily Kos, but that's only a marginal improvement. Breitbart is the most prominent conservative news/opinion site and features a notable author and pundit who wrote an entire article about the reception to this film (along with commentary from others), so tossing out only two of the many leftist opinion sources used is hardly a fair and neutral trade. VictorD7 (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How much more neutral can you get then "Should X be removed?" I added Daily Kos, as I did not see that and I think it has the same problems as the other two. I do not agree that the others are in question nor do I agree the problem is "opinionated sources". Casprings (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The others, especially The Huffington Post, Daily Beast, and Salon, are very much in question, which is why I listed them and why they've been mentioned all over this page. That you're not including them because you don't think they should be removed illustrates how the current question wording is biased and rigged to yield a particular result that won't come close to resolving the disputes here. Also, clarity is needed on precisely what you want to remove from Breitbart. Just the Shapiro quote? Both the political pundits quoted from it? The professional critic (Christian Toto) who's quoted in the above section and whose inclusion has already been explicitly approved by another RFC? The other, more mundane uses of the source elsewhere in the article (added by Erik I believe), the deletion of which would require chunks of the article to be rewritten? VictorD7 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources you have listed, unlike Breitbart, have long been accepted as RSes on Wikipedia, but you are welcome to start your own RFC or RS noticeboard post on the matter instead of complaining about the simple and straighforward RFC here. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of those sources the only one that I've seen a consensus supporting as "RS" is Breitbart. Of course being RS always depends on context, so your claim is nonsensical to begin with. VictorD7 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again claiming the "Brietbart as a reliable source" was the outcome of the RFC is reading only a very partial aspect. The "reliability" of Breitbart was that the site was reliable for not having made up a review and claiming it was written by Toto. That is as far as the "reliability" goes. There are multiple other occasions such as ANY content about ANY living person, Brietbart has utterly failed as a relaible source due to their repeated history of being exactly the opposite of reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the RFC found Breitbart reliable for supporting the quote in this article, which goes further than you imply. Again, I have never seen Breitbart found "not RS" in any context, and certainly not this one, nor have I ever seen any of the leftist sites I listed above be explicitly deemed "RS" by consensus. They may have somewhere, but no one has linked to such a consensus yet, and they certainly haven't been deemed RS on this article. I'm not opposing their use here, but just illustrating how the assertions I'm responding to are the opposite of the truth. This RFC should include The Huffington Post, Salon.com, National Journal, Daily Beast, and the others I mentioned to be neutral, productive, and worthwhile. People can give different answers for different sources if they wish. VictorD7 (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read the close, it does nothing of the kind. "Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. " (emph added) the question was " Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own film review?" Period. That you failed to frame the question in the RFC to determine community response your actual question is not anyone's fault but yours. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was clear from the beginning that this was the plan: a narrowly tailored RFC designed to be innocuous and gain acceptance, which was then used as a mandate for edits far beyond the scope of the RFC. Gamaliel (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is clear is that you and a few others don't like the result and have been forum shopping the result for months to try and get it removed. It is a little disgusting to say the least. Arzel (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These editors clearly weren't forum-shopping for months. This is not true. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about limiting it simply to accuracy, which neither Breitbart nor MMfA nor Kos can lay claim to? Not all partisan sources are bad, but these aren't good ones by any stretch. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to what, CBS, the NY Times, or Rolling Stone? Your comment misses the point. These are attributed, subjective reactions to a political film, not facts where "accuracy" enters into it, and we can't cherry-pick the ones we cover in such a way that leaves an indefensible partisan skew. VictorD7 (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should matter that it's "attributed." They're terrible, low-quality, regularly-inaccurate sources. You might have a point about Rolling Stone as of late, but surely there are good sources we can use that aren't the one subject to this RFC. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Breitbart has largely been attacked because of one specific instance. If the same standard was applied to Rolling Stones, and now New York Magazine then they would have to be black-listed as well. I really do find it amazing how such a small section in a small article on WP has continued to be such a flash point. It really goes to show you how much some people despise this movie and the movie-maker. Arzel (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One specific instance? Here are at least four major egregious violations regarding living people [33] [34] for [35] [36] let alone the general fact stretching. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor behavior concerns

Concerns about editor behavior – not focused on article improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Should we consider tagging VictorD7 as a WP:SPA account at this point? About 700 of their last 800 edits since the summer across talk pages and noticeboards, have been tightly focussed on getting this one movie to have better reviews. At this point In the RfC discussion above, this user has added more words total than all other commenters combined. At what point is it too unworkably disruptive and WP:BLUDGEONy? It's not against policy to have a personal bias, but this seems to be going beyond any purpose of building an encyclopedia; it seems to be editing to promote a single movie. I didn't mention anything before about this pattern for the entire five months it's occurred, but if it's behavior that might affect the RfC in general, we should address it. Can the editor, in the interest of encouraging new voices here, consider limiting their direct rebuttals to every second editor?__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. I have tagged his edits on the RFC as SPA.Casprings (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What percentage of scoobydunk's edits have focused on this article over the past several months? Your aggressive outrage is awfully selective. And no, I'm only one of several editors who have commented extensively here. My concern is neutrality, and your failure to point to a single example of me violating that principle is telling. I would have left this article long ago if it wasn't for a couple of editors engaging in a dedicated tendentious pattern. I only commented on this new RFC because it's so poorly and non-neutrally constructed that new editors have no idea what's going on, and require some explanation. I haven't posted on Wikipedia much lately, so most of my edits in recent months have involved this article, but since you apparently followed me to a different article, you know I'm not a SPA. I've been an established editor for two and half years, since long before I ever visited this article, and have edited and commented on numerous diverse topics, often related to economics or history. Quoting from your SPA essay: "Whom not to tag (SPA tagging guidelines)
The following is a list of common misuses of the single-purpose account tag. You should under no circumstance consider anything that falls into the below categories as evidence for warranting an SPA tag.
Editing time line: the timeline of a user’s edits should not be considered when using single-purpose account tags. One must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits. Examples of non-SPAs include Users with a diversified edit history that become inactive for an extended period and later re-establish themselves with single subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person was referred to Wikipedia by an outside source, but it isn't evidence that the person is an SPA.
An established editor focusing on a single topic is not an SPA. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, he or she can focus on single subjects for extended periods of time without being labeled an SPA.''"
Since using an article talk page to start a call out section to level accusations against and seek to silence another editor, especially if the accusations are false, is a diversion from substantive content discussion, extremely disruptive, and likely to boomerang on you, I'd suggest deleting this entire subsection. VictorD7 (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scoobydunk has about 200 edits on the subject to your 700, over the same time period. I did notice you added four edits to the Atlantis talk page, but that doesn't seem that substantive somehow. It looks like your diversified edit history, isn't diversified at all, as you were arguably a SPA on a different topic before this. You switched from having a tight focus on a single bit of obscure tax material in the article United States to a tight focus on adding specific reviews to the article America: Imagine the World Without Her. That's not that diversified a range, that's a repeated pattern. Your edit count analysis can be considered evidence for my comments here. Consider easing up on rebutting every editor you disagree with in an RfC setting; it's good practice.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So now I'm supposedly a Double Purpose Editor, lol? False. I've edited numerous articles since 2012, on a variety of historical, tax, political, economic, and even sports topics, as any honest observer can see by scanning my entire editing history (which your own linked essay instructs). SPA generally applies to new editors and you grossly misused it. To my knowledge it wouldn't be a policy violation in any event. I didn't realize edit count mattered to being SPA (I was talking percentage, as you did in your op), but for the record I'll note that scooby's posts are usually longer than mine. Also, I wasn't planning on "rebutting every editor I disagreed with". The RFC is brand new, lacked any link to discussion, identification of the segments in question, explanation that most of the segments in question are attributed quotes in a section dedicated to such quotes (most readers will have facts in Wikipedia's voice in mind, since that's what most of Wikipedia is), or any context at all. Most of what needed to be posted I had already posted before you posted your little WP:TPNO call out section here, though I'm not ruling out contributing to the discussion again. So far I've only responded to two respondents and the RFC op. One respondent changed his vote in response to my reply. The op struck through and replaced his entire rationale after I corrected an error he made. Hardly frivolous; productive and useful in fact. You should be thanking me. The other respondent hasn't yet replied to my comments, but I have experience working with this editor on another (healthcare related) article and found him to be reasonable, so I'm hoping for the best. VictorD7 (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This SPA should have been topic banned months ago. It's long past time to bring this to ANI. Gamaliel (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If anything should be brought to such a review, it should be your abuse of admin power in a content dispute in which you were a participant (discovered by Collect in an above discussion), and the incidents of you trolling by replying to on topic posts with giant cartoons. Since the page linked in the op unambiguously defines my established, diverse posting history as "not" SPA (SPA is mostly designed for recently created accounts), you must be using a different definition. VictorD7 (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to start an RFC on my horrific abuse, but the fact that you haven't done so shows that you are well aware the boomerang will hit you in the face. Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it just shows, as I said when advising (but not reporting) you when you violated 3RR, that I'm not the type of guy to run to admin and tell. But if you take such frivolous, baseless action against me I may have little choice. VictorD7 (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. He has been at it for months.Casprings (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Elaqueate: would you support such an action as well? Gamaliel (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only if this editor continues rebutting new editors with points he's already outlined at length, in this RfC, in comments he's already made in this RfC. I don't think any one needs my approval to get other editor's comments at AN/I. I don't at this point think he has to be removed from the discussion, but he's not commenting in a way that encourages new voices to speak up at an RfC, and he should consider changing his style before it becomes more apparent to more editors. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not your approval, your participation. The more editors who support such an action, the less likely that it can be sidetracked by editors who are willing to ignore this editor' behavior for ideological advantage. Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked with him on a few political articles over the last few years. Calling him an SPA seems way out of line, and I don't see anything untoward here, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for my supposed extensive commentary in the new RFC, I'll add that one respondent has already changed his vote based on my reply to him, so it's hardly frivolous. VictorD7 (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Off-topic – The discussion here is WP:TPNO in spades. It deals with an editor behavior issue alone, not with article improvement. If there are problems, then bring them up on the WP:ANI. If it were not for the disappointing comments I see from experienced editors and administrators – who should know better – I would hat this discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right that I should have brought it to AN/I. I had a possibly naive hope that a smaller discussion amongst RfC participants would have benefited the RfC and the editor involved. Let's call me wrong. __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is disappointing to see admins misuse their tools. It appears that you and a few others disagree with the previous RfC and have now resorted to trying to shut up victor as another means to achieve the same end. Arzel (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her&oldid=639362086"