→Reactions section: add |
Rhododendrites (talk | contribs) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 230: | Line 230: | ||
Thoughts? [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 17:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC) |
Thoughts? [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 17:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
:Kind of goes back to why this should've been deleted back at the afd. The keep !voters kept saying that it should be kept because it's a movie and should be treated as a movie rather than consider the fringe subject matter. Then we kept it on the basis that it should be treated like a film, despite the fact that there wasn't significant in-depth coverage of the film itself (only some announcements/press releases/buzz published in local news sources). Now we have an article about a movie that we're supposed to treat like a movie, but we cite sources that are not known as reliable sources for film criticism. Unsurprisingly, it's an article about fringe documentary filled with sources covering it because they also promote that fringe theory, not because they're reliable sources for film reviews. If there's an argument to include this because they're reliable sources for creationism, etc. then we're not actually treating it as a movie. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 17:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:28, 23 May 2018
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Category
We have Category:Pseudoscience documentary films although considering the few entries it has it may not be the appropriate one. We also have Category:Propaganda films but here again the entries are not for religious articles. A more appropriate category probably exists, input welcome. For now Category:Creation science is probably adequate. Category:Pseudoscience documentary films is now present but can be contested. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- I won't contest Category:Pseudoscience documentary films, but I wouldn't mind if it is deleted. I think Wikipedia is going too far in how it labels minority/fringe viewpoints as "pseudoscience" and the like, even if there is no evidence for such views. I strongly oppose the inclusion of Category:Propaganda films, which would be very POV to include here (and doing so would massively widen the scope of films considered "propaganda"). Category:Creation science is a good category, as creation science is not mutually inclusive with Category:Young Earth creationism. I have a feeling that including Category:Documentary films about science might be a controversial decision of mine, but I strongly think it should stay because this documentary delves into the science part of YEC as opposed to theology/Christianity. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
"how it labels minority/fringe viewpoints as `pseudoscience' and the like, even if there is no evidence for such views"
Usually the evidence is the denial or misinterpretation of data which is widely understood by other scientists in the relevant field. For instance, competent geologists should understand how we date the earth and that for instance there isn't evidence for a global flood since humanity exists, that Homo Sapiens have been around for 200-300k years, etc.
Personal religious views can remain outside of the reach of science, but when beliefs interfere with rational and critical thinking to a point where much of the physical evidence must be dismissed or where the interpretation of that evidence requires a lot of twisting, or that the scientific establishment must become part of a conspiracy theory to mislead (thinking that beliefs and politics would be its concerns, or that it is influenced by evil invisible forces, rather than simply being about knowledge development), in attempt to reconcile it with iron-age beliefs, this is where it leaves the realm of good science.
Claiming to do science this way can be called doing pseudoscience (it departed from the intellectually-honest scientific method, but claims to be doing science). I hope this explains why plenty of reliable sources will describe it as such and why we also should report this in an encyclopedia that cares about knowledge and education. This also sticks to WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE/PS. —PaleoNeonate – 06:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Pseudoscience documentary films sounds right to me. @1990'sguy: As I suspect you already know, the overwhelming majority of sources do not consider Young Earth creationism to be a scientific viewpoint (see our article on creation science), so the attempts throughout this article to present it as science, and this film as a science documentary, is not in accordance with WP:NPOV. – Joe (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- First off, why isn't Category:Pseudoscience documentary films not a subcategory of Category:Documentary films about science? More importantly, the latter category describes films about science. You can think that this movie is as pseudoscientific as it gets, but it still revolves around science, rejecting evolution. I have to say, some of your comments equally violate NPOV[1] -- these people advocate YEC, but rather than just saying that they believe unscientific ideas, you make the very broad claim that they are not scientists at all. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Pseudoscience is, by definition, not science, so I don't see why it would be a subcat. From the description here it sounds like this film is about pseudoscience and religion (creationism), not science, hence removing Category:Documentary films about science.
- I would say that I'm disputing your rather broad claim that they are scientists – a point I would be happy to concede if you can produce a reliable source that describes them as such. I did individually search for each of the interviewees mentioned in the article before making these changes, and found that none of them are currently working scientists at bona fide research institutions, and when mentioned in reliable sources they are invariably described as "creationists" rather than scientists. – Joe (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- So how would you define scientist? Take Kurt Wise for instance. Even Richard Dawkins recognizes his credentials. His advisor was Stephen J. Gould and his dissertation was "The Estimation of True Taxonomic Durations from Fossil Occurrence Data" awarded from Harvard in 1989. He continues to do research on the natural world, per the definition in WP. Even if his assumptions and findings differ from others, he still fits the definition of a scientist in every way. In fact, there have been countless "scientists" who disagreed with the establishment only to be vindicated with time. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it is curious censorship based on what appears to be pure subjectivity. Please explain how it is not.Boeldieu (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- There's more to being a scientist than getting a degree. It is a profession attached to a certain philosophy: the systematic understanding of the natural world through empirical experiment and observation. So-called creation scientists don't just look at evidence and reach a different conclusion, they ignore and distort evidence until it fits a preconceived religious view. They reject the scientific method in favour of theology dressed up in a lab coat. That is fundamentally at odds with being a scientist. More prosaically, being a scientist implies being employed to work as a scientist. Very few creationists work at mainstream universities or research institutes. They invariably end up at seminaries, bible colleges, or evangelical nonprofits, another sign that they have abandoned science in favour of theology.
- This may be subjective but I believe it is the generally accepted view. Ultimately, on Wikipedia we fall back on what the sources say. If you google the people on the cast list, you will find that reliable sources tend to refer to them as a "creationist", or occasionally a "creationist palaeontologist" (etc.), but never a "scientist" or a subject expert without the qualifier. So we shouldn't either. – Joe (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- So how would you define scientist? Take Kurt Wise for instance. Even Richard Dawkins recognizes his credentials. His advisor was Stephen J. Gould and his dissertation was "The Estimation of True Taxonomic Durations from Fossil Occurrence Data" awarded from Harvard in 1989. He continues to do research on the natural world, per the definition in WP. Even if his assumptions and findings differ from others, he still fits the definition of a scientist in every way. In fact, there have been countless "scientists" who disagreed with the establishment only to be vindicated with time. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it is curious censorship based on what appears to be pure subjectivity. Please explain how it is not.Boeldieu (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- First off, why isn't Category:Pseudoscience documentary films not a subcategory of Category:Documentary films about science? More importantly, the latter category describes films about science. You can think that this movie is as pseudoscientific as it gets, but it still revolves around science, rejecting evolution. I have to say, some of your comments equally violate NPOV[1] -- these people advocate YEC, but rather than just saying that they believe unscientific ideas, you make the very broad claim that they are not scientists at all. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- If having credentials makes one a scientist, then it's easy enough to extrapolate that to "anyone who has credentials in a field is a member of that field." So I am a guerilla and a soldier.
- But there's more. You see, I actually have a science degree. More importantly (and more than many of these creationists can claim), I've even published a paper in a well-respected peer-reviewed journal. I have an Erdos number, though it's a rather high one. So I guess I'm a scientist, too.
- But I've also been certified in HEMA, so I guess that makes me a Knight. And I have a 3rd dan in ninjutsu so I'm also a ninja.
- Let's see, what else? Oh, I'm on a video game developers list of closed alpha testers, so I'm a professional gamer.
- So where are we? Oh yeah, guerilla-soldier-scientist-knight-ninja-pro-gamer (sounds like I aught to have a thac0 of negative ten gajillion or so). While that sounds pretty badass in terms of bragging rights, the truth is that I'm just a software developer and an engineer. I work in an office, on a computer. I could go on for hours about SDKs and the merits of different languages, long after I would have run out of stories from my time in the Army, or from one of my innumerable hobbies.
- The simple fact is, regardless of their credentials, if they don't do science, they're not scientists. Now, it was my impression that some of these guys actually work in science (sciences that don't address creationism), so I'm okay with those guys being referred to as scientists. Though I might be wrong about them. But even if I'm right, their jobs don't "rub off" on the others. If we can't verify that every single one of them works in science, we can't collectively refer to them as scientists. This is WP:V 101 stuff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
edit warring
@Boeldieu and 1990'sguy: When you are reverted, you are expected to come to talk and discuss. You are not expected to just revert again and keep charging ahead. Well, here is your chance to discuss before you get reverted again, by someone else. Convince me that the transcript was actually evidence, and that the film's website is a reliable source for the credentials of people interviewed. Alternatively, you can find better sources and wordings. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- As for me, I know the rules of WP, and I did not violate any of them. I saw Boeldieu's edit, and I read the article, and I think the editor is correct. My edit did not say anything about whether the transcript was sufficient evidence or good evidence, but Purifoy clearly linked the full movie interview, intended as evidence for his position. Seems simple to me. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- The bit about expectations was not directed at you. Apologies for not making that clear.
- Would you object to "...presented the full film interview with Nelson as evidence..." as an alternative wording? Because "...linked the full film interview with Nelson as evidence..." suggests that it was evidence, which is -given the nature of the back-and-forth- purely subjective. "linked" doesn't connotate intention, merely action, whereas "presented" implies both. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I do not object, and apology accepted. I think the wording issue is minor. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting a discussion started.
- Regarding the cast and their credentials:
- I'm not familiar with how these problems have been handled in similar articles (articles about movies presenting FRINGE topics based mostly on interviews of "experts").
- IMDB is a poor source, especially for BLP-related info (See Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb).
- The film site currently used as a reference says, "Learn from more than a dozen scientists and scholars as they explore the world around us in light of Genesis."
- As for the false dichotomy, I don't see why the filmmakers' response is due at all without an independent source. --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- IMDB is, I believe, generally considered acceptable for a cast list. I'm not 100% sure on that, we'd have to search the RSN archives to be sure and that will take a while. I'll get on it tomorrow if it's still an issue.
- You raise a good point about the response, I'll hjave to give that some thought. Also, I know I reverted a bit about the credentials, but that's based on the use of the film website as a source. I'm pretty sure the credentials listed are accurate, I just want to see better sourcing before it's said in wikivoice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think IMDB is fine for a simple cast list, but that's not what editors have been attempting to do. Instead, they want a list of the experts with credentials. Given that the Synopsis section already identifies them as creation scientists, why not just have a cast list without the extras? --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I would be okay with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think a full cast list is fine, but it shouldn't include educational credentials (per MOS:CREDENTIALS) or descriptions of the interviewees as scientists (since they are all creationists, this is a controversial label, and we lack a reliable source to back it up).
- 1990'sguy's continued insistence that the cast section includes the text "scholars and creation scientists" seems redundant to me, given that the section before it says exactly the same thing, but that's a quibble. – Joe (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, as creationists with credentials which are germane to the issue, it's extremely doubtful that any of them do any actual science. But the MOS is pretty clear and it's something we do when we're talking about actual scientists, so not following it here would be a pro-creationism POV issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think IMDB is fine for a simple cast list, but that's not what editors have been attempting to do. Instead, they want a list of the experts with credentials. Given that the Synopsis section already identifies them as creation scientists, why not just have a cast list without the extras? --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I do not object, and apology accepted. I think the wording issue is minor. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Since I'm the one that stepped in and got the edit war started, my apologies. I am new, so I'm sure I stepped on a few WP toes. That said, I agree that credentials are unnecessary for a cast, so removed. However, as a statement of fact for identifying the cast members (since they are clearly important to the whomever decided to include them), one can only cross-reference sites and compare. So far as I can find, there is no other list anywhere, and all these lists agree. Please demonstrate any precedent for other nationally-released feature films listed on WP that require additional proof for their cast. Thank you for your patience with maladroit users. Boeldieu (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Reception section and WP:PSCI
I have pulled the reception section into alignment with the WP:PSCI policy. I had to reach for a low quality set of refs but this is allowable per WP:PARITY. I also reduced the WEIGHT given to pseudoscience advocacy, again per the WP:PSCI policy.
I've provided notice to everybody of the DS on PSCI via a tag at the top of this page. Jytdog (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Fine, but there was zero reason to remove the favorable reviews that you did -- it was completely arbitrary. All of these YEC or YEC-friendly organizations are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, so we can include what they said. However, (to be clear) I did shorten the article info on those reviews so it does not take so much space.
- Also, the Orlando Sentinel article was not a movie review. Another editor also removed it from the "reception" section a few days ago for that same reason.
- Regarding the designation of the film as a documentary, the RSs that I've seen describe it as a documentary. Just because that designation may insult your intelligence or whatever doesn't make it not a documentary. These people think they are documenting reality, and the intentions are what matter. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- The Orlando Sentinel article was a review of several films: that does not make it something other than a review, nor does the fact that the writer didn't explicitly grade the films. There's a lot more to reviews than just answering the question "Should the reader watch it?"
- And I'm not aware of any policy that says that RS reactions to a film must be in the form of reviews. This was quite clearly a reaction (it was fairly blatant satire), which falls under the aegis of the public reception. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
TheGospelCoalition does not have a position for or against young Earth creation. The article cited is solely the position of it's author, Gavin Ortlund. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.69.252 (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. It was a blogger on the site, not the organization "speaking" in that blog. We don't have to discuss what the organization's position is or is not. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I revised the wording to mention their names and still show the organizations they wrote for. Biologos and Reasons to Believe clearly have the same POV as the authors, and it still gives context to mention those organizations' names. Also, some of the writers (particularly the Biologos article) were academics, not bloggers. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- content in Wikipdia needs to be supported by sources. the description of the bloggers here was unsourced and there is actually no need to mention where they were blogging. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Biologos, Reasons to Believe, and TGC are notable organizations -- we should mention where they are writing, just like we do with the other reviews. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- And you ignored the fact that the Biologos people were academics, not bloggers. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- content in Wikipdia needs to be supported by sources. the description of the bloggers here was unsourced and there is actually no need to mention where they were blogging. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I revised the wording to mention their names and still show the organizations they wrote for. Biologos and Reasons to Believe clearly have the same POV as the authors, and it still gives context to mention those organizations' names. Also, some of the writers (particularly the Biologos article) were academics, not bloggers. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Patheos
What makes this blog a RS? SLIGHTLYmad 08:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- This is a question I sometimes asked myself. While it is popular, and apparently has a certain type of oversight on at least part of their publications, I have read various articles on various subjects which contained uncorrected misconceptions and errors. It may be a good idea to discuss this source again at WP:RSN, but also see, from the archives: 1, 2, 3. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Rotten tomatoes
As discussed here, RT is fine. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- The talk page discussion refers to the "consensus statement" for movies on Rotton Tomatoes. I agree that the R.T. "consensus statement" and the included ratings from professional reviewers is fine to cite -- what I do have a problem with is the audience scores, as anybody can vote. Voluntary polls and not scientific and are not reliable, and that is what the Rotton Tomato audience score is. I am strictly following WP:MOSFILM#Audience response: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." It is Jytdog who is going against the consensus on this. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- The source is fine; the content could use tweaking perhaps. You removed it completely. It is a bit hard to see you doing anything "strictly" on this; see the section above. Why "strict" here and not when citing christian blogs? Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- The link is still in the "External links" section, where it belongs. I support including the "consensus statement" and professional reviews compiled by R.T., but the audience score (a voluntary response poll) is completely unacceptable, per MOSFILM. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Let's see what others say; in the meantime you have blown past 3RR and can expect a block, since you chose to edit war instead of discuss. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, for whatever reason, you've decided to completely disregard WP:MOSFILM#Audience response, which I linked to several times. The wording is clear enough: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." --1990'sguy (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- That was part of the content and fixable. your complete removal of content based on the source was just raw advocacy; as I said you can expect a block or warning for edit warring without discussion. There is no "winning" in Wikipedia; it isn't about that. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- The audience score was the content, period. There is no "consensus statement" or professional reviews compiled on the R.T. site, so me removing the audience score was synonymous with removing the entire paragraph. Besides, your "raw advocacy" garbage shows you are ignoring the fact that since voluntary response polls are unreliable and unscientific, we should keep them out. There is nothing in the R.T. source (and the paragraph in dispute) of substance other than that. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Do your quotation marks actually indicate a quote, Jytdog? Because I don't see 1990'sguy talking about "winning" anywhere. I also disagree with 1990'sguy's POV on this subject but they are the one talking about the content, whilst you are throwing out accusations left right and centre. Also, as far as I can tell you are not an administrator, so why do you keep threatening blocks? – Joe (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- It was negative content that 1990sguy was scrubbing. Which is what all their removals from this article have been. They have a clear pattern of promotional editing (adding PROMO, removing negative content) on this article - it takes only a few minutes to see this. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog, if you added a professional review or a scientific/reliable audience poll, I would accept it without question. It is you, Jytdog, who is trying to add as much negative content about the movie at all costs, even if it's an unreliable/unscientific voluntary response poll. I included several negative reviews of the movie when I originally created the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Please keep writing; these diffs are valuable to me. I look forward to hearing from others about how to use the Rotten Tomatoes ref as a source. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Regardless of what you have assumed 1990'sguy's motives for editing this article are, we don't typically include user ratings in reception sections, and this is clearly backed up by WP:MOSFILM#Audience response. – Joe (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Please keep writing; these diffs are valuable to me. I look forward to hearing from others about how to use the Rotten Tomatoes ref as a source. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog, if you added a professional review or a scientific/reliable audience poll, I would accept it without question. It is you, Jytdog, who is trying to add as much negative content about the movie at all costs, even if it's an unreliable/unscientific voluntary response poll. I included several negative reviews of the movie when I originally created the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- It was negative content that 1990sguy was scrubbing. Which is what all their removals from this article have been. They have a clear pattern of promotional editing (adding PROMO, removing negative content) on this article - it takes only a few minutes to see this. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- That was part of the content and fixable. your complete removal of content based on the source was just raw advocacy; as I said you can expect a block or warning for edit warring without discussion. There is no "winning" in Wikipedia; it isn't about that. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, for whatever reason, you've decided to completely disregard WP:MOSFILM#Audience response, which I linked to several times. The wording is clear enough: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." --1990'sguy (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Let's see what others say; in the meantime you have blown past 3RR and can expect a block, since you chose to edit war instead of discuss. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- The link is still in the "External links" section, where it belongs. I support including the "consensus statement" and professional reviews compiled by R.T., but the audience score (a voluntary response poll) is completely unacceptable, per MOSFILM. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- The source is fine; the content could use tweaking perhaps. You removed it completely. It is a bit hard to see you doing anything "strictly" on this; see the section above. Why "strict" here and not when citing christian blogs? Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
While administrators are the ones who block, issuing warnings on the part of non-administrators is standard practice (in this case the 3RR template was avoided in favor of prose). Those templates also include warnings about potential blocks. An an3 case was also opened from what I see (so it also wasn't only a threat). While it seems to be difficult for everyone, I suggest to pursue any aspersions either at user talk pages or at the administrator noticeboards (where it is appropriate) and to only discuss content on this talk page.
Something of interest in this case may be WP:PARITY which permits to use sources which would otherwise not be considered ideal. I'm not sure if this can apply in this case. The manual of style is also distinct from policies (which are more fundamental). Also of interest on the same MOS page are the sentences: Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews
and "Top Critics" scores may not be notable. The general "All Critics" score is more widely reported than the "Top Critics" score, and is the statistic for which Rotten Tomatoes is generally notable.
so it seems that not all information from RT is considered equal... —PaleoNeonate – 00:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I already said before, I have no problem with citing Rotton Tomatoes for professional reviews and the "consensus statement" added by R.T.'s editors. My problem is with citing the voluntary response poll for the audience score (you and I could vote on that if we wanted to, so that score is worthless), which MOSFILM explicitly tells us not to include. However, it just so happens that most the internet users who decided to voluntarily vote on R.T.'s website happened to mainly dislike to movie, so it's obvious why Jytdog wanted it added (just look at the AfD page and this article's history). --1990'sguy (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I just recently conceded an argument over whether audience scores can be included at The Orville, having made an "include" argument. With that being said, I'm not so sure that WP:PARITY would apply here, as the subject of the article itself is not WP:FRINGE, but rather a 'documentary' about a fringe subject. But I'm damn sure that edit warring isn't the way to figure it out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @PaleoNeonate: What is a policy is WP:SPS. The Rotten Tomatoes audience score (or Metacritic, IMDB, take your pick) is simply 349 random people's self-published opinions. There's no editorial oversight to ensure that they are informed reviews; there aren't even reviews to speak of, just numerical ratings. All the guidelines you quote are referring to actual reviews by actual film critics, which is what we should be basing articles on. This is barely a step above including how many Facebook likes it got. – Joe (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I self-reverted due to 3RR issues, but someone really should remove the paragraph. Its only purpose is to promote an unreliable/unscientific voluntary response internet poll from R.T., something which WP:MOSFILM#Audience response explicitly tells us not to do. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I removed the bit you were objecting to. Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- The whole paragraph should be removed. It's irrelevant if Rotton Tomatoes did not have a score for the movie. Are you also going to add that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Guardian, did not rate the movie? This is essentially what the paragraph does. We should discuss the people who did comment on the movie, not the people who didn't (unless an RS reports someone specifically not reviewing a movie). --1990'sguy (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe: Thanks, I agree with you about the WP:SPS issue. —PaleoNeonate – 04:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've removed the rest of the paragraph. It's not just that RT doesn't have enough reviews for a score, there are no reviews of it at all. It's just an empty page. As 1990sguy say's it would be absurd to start listing publications that haven't reviewed a film. – Joe (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Why would we list which websites DON'T have reviews of the film?
A reason might be to explain the difficulty of finding proper reviews even on prominent movie review sites, indicating a lack of notability. But I'm not sure if it should be restored, I have no strong opinion about it. —PaleoNeonate – 12:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've removed the rest of the paragraph. It's not just that RT doesn't have enough reviews for a score, there are no reviews of it at all. It's just an empty page. As 1990sguy say's it would be absurd to start listing publications that haven't reviewed a film. – Joe (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm with Paleo and Jytdog on this aspect of the question: It is notable -and thus WP:DUE- that reviewers have eschewed this film. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Just look at the AfD -- editors supported keeping the movie by a 4:1 ratio (and many of them made clear that they abhor YEC and the movie). Clearly, they found the existing sources and reviews to be sufficient. Adding "that reviewers have eschewed this film" not only is another attempt to delegitimize the article as not being notable enough to have its own article (despite the AfD which concluded otherwise), but it violates WP:OR, since we should have a source that specifically says that the movie got little coverage if we want to include this. Rotton Tomatoes does not determine notability. Otherwise, just stick to mention who did review the movie. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Adding "that reviewers have eschewed this film" not only is another attempt to delegitimize the article as not being notable enough to have its own article
Please stop imagining motivations for editors, at least two of whom never !voted in that AfD. If you cannot, I will eventually begin mocking the unbelievably ridiculous notion that you have any ability to discern the "true" motivations of others through constant references to the psychic powers this would require. ;)but it violates WP:OR, since we should have a source that specifically says that the movie got little coverage
The Rotten tomatoes source explicitly says that this movie got no reviews. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)- My comment was mainly directed at Jytdog, not at you. He has made his intentions very clear at the AfD, and I have reason to believe that he is not finished trying to delete the article. Besides, show me another movie article that actually says that it didn't get professional reviews, such as on Rotton Tomatoes -- not every movie that has a Wikipedia article also has professional reviews on Rotton Tomatoes -- this article is not an exception. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- My previous "warning" was a somewhat light-hearted, but the truth is that nobody cares if you "have reasons to believe" you know the motivations of another editor. Willfully ignoring WP:AGF for a longstanding editor with a good reputation is a ticket to being blocked. It is, at the very least, evidence that may be used against you should you do something untoward and get reported to ANI, to establish a pattern of disruptive or battleground behavior. So please just don't do it. Besides, I can look at that comment as evidence that Jytdog is not trying to get the article deleted, but that he believes it is just a matter of time before someone else gets it deleted. You should consider that possibility, as well.
- The assignation of motives to a person with whom you only communicate over the internet is something that should only be done when you can provide convincing evidence that only a small number (but more than one) of possibilities for their motives exist, or when that person directly states their motivations. Should you ever find convincing evidence (that does not consist of a direct statement from that person about their motivations) that only one possible motivation can be at play, rest assured that your own biases (which we all have) are affecting your judgement, preventing you from seeing other possibilities. This has been my experience, both with myself and with others.
- Excluding those cases where the person explicitly states their motivations, any time only ONE motivation makes sense, another person will come along and list at least one additional motivation that, upon reflection, will make sense. It is only when one can only see a small number of possible motivations that the impression turns out to be accurate. This is especially true when at least two of those few motivations are mutually exclusive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- In the interest of fairness, since WP:AGF and the potential breach thereof was brought up here, let's acknowledge that 1990'sguy was not the only one making a potentially problematic assumption about the motives of another editor. Claiming that 1990'sguy is "scrubbing" negative content, editing promotionally, and accusing him of trying to WP:OWN the article could all potentially be construed as running afoul of AGF as well. As far as I have seen, he has supported each of his insertions and deletions with a rationale other than whitewashing or promotion. Folks are free to disagree with those rationales, but they are not free to substitute their own notions about his "real" motives without compelling evidence. YEC-related articles are clearly ones that both 1990'sguy and Jytdog are passionate about and hold diametrically opposing views on. Further than this, we should not go when talking about their motives for editing, per WP:AOBF. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Back to the subject:
show me another movie article that actually says that it didn't get professional reviews
Show us another movie article on a movie which does not say that it didn't get professional reviews, plus a source that says it didn't get any, and nobody can stop you from adding a sentence saying it didn't get any. - Every article on a movie for which we have a source explicitly saying it got no reviews, can say that. When we have no such quote, it can't. Simple. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- My comment was mainly directed at Jytdog, not at you. He has made his intentions very clear at the AfD, and I have reason to believe that he is not finished trying to delete the article. Besides, show me another movie article that actually says that it didn't get professional reviews, such as on Rotton Tomatoes -- not every movie that has a Wikipedia article also has professional reviews on Rotton Tomatoes -- this article is not an exception. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Just look at the AfD -- editors supported keeping the movie by a 4:1 ratio (and many of them made clear that they abhor YEC and the movie). Clearly, they found the existing sources and reviews to be sufficient. Adding "that reviewers have eschewed this film" not only is another attempt to delegitimize the article as not being notable enough to have its own article (despite the AfD which concluded otherwise), but it violates WP:OR, since we should have a source that specifically says that the movie got little coverage if we want to include this. Rotton Tomatoes does not determine notability. Otherwise, just stick to mention who did review the movie. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think our readers care about our internal arguments over notability. We had a truly exhaustive discussion about it at AfD, so please let's not rehash it here. Also, RT doesn't say the film got no reviews (which is patently false), it merely has a blank space where the reviews would normally be; maybe that's because RT rejected the reviews that are out there, maybe it's because they only aggregate reviews from a limited list of outlets, maybe it's just because it's a small indie film on an eccentric subject so they haven't bothered to look. We simply don't know, so I think using that absence to make a point about the lack of mainstream attention the film has gotten is a clear case of original research. And again, I don't think our readers care. To repeat an argument I made at AfD, WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE don't mean we have to spoonfeed the reader the "right" perspective. The reception section already makes it perfectly clear that the film has primarily been discussed in Christian and creationist media. – Joe (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think our readers care about our internal arguments over notability
I agree, but the issue is how difficult it is to build a proper article. Jytdog even had to resort to WP:PARITY to include source(s) we would not normally consider reliable, but which gave a resonable enough treatment of the topic to be used. Now we would also like to summarize independent professional reviews, but they are lacking... —PaleoNeonate – 22:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)- The sources we have are the sources we have, and I think the article does a reasonable job of summarising them in its current version. If you think we're unable to write an article that conforms to the core content policies with them then you should take it to AfD again (please don't). Otherwise we don't bend the rules to try and 'debunk' subjects we don't like. – Joe (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Joe you asked here "why would we list which websites DON'T have reviews of the film?" The question is not really fair the way it is stated. If we went from citing newspaper after newspaper (NYT, vanity fair, LA Times etc etc) and said "X has no review" that would be weird and ORish and your question would be fair. But RT is an aggregator, which is why it is used so much. If you ask "Why would we say that RT doesn't have reviews", it would be "it is noteworthy that RT doesn't have any reviews to list, and arguably DUE to state that". Now, it is kind of OR-ish to write what what the original editor wrote (and btw, looking at that person's contribs, they write mostly about movies), that "Due to an insufficient number of reviews, aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes lacks a score for the film." It would not be OR to say: "As of October 2017 Rotten Tomatoes' "Tomatometer" had no rating and the site listed no reviews for the film" which is simply reporting what is there and not interpreting it. (giving the reason for the lack of a tomatometer -- "due an insufficient number of reviews" -- is the interpreting, ORish part of the edit)
- So, User:Slightlymad can you say why you think your original content is not WP:OR? Do you find this sort of statement commonly in your editing about movies in WP?
- I look forward to hearing from Slightlymad, and may do an RfC on this. It is kind of interesting. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- The sources we have are the sources we have, and I think the article does a reasonable job of summarising them in its current version. If you think we're unable to write an article that conforms to the core content policies with them then you should take it to AfD again (please don't). Otherwise we don't bend the rules to try and 'debunk' subjects we don't like. – Joe (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
If the crux of the biscuit here is adding a statement about RT lacking reviews so that our readers will understand why the Wikipedia article is so sparsely dependent upon professional reviews, let me posit the following:
- I suspect relatively few of our readers will be struck by the lack of professional reviews. There are a number of Wiki articles that are woefully incomplete – some because the sources don't exist, and some because no one has bothered to consult the extant sources and improve the article. My assumption is that the majority of readers of this article would be inclined to shrug it off and say, "Well, that's how Wikipedia is sometimes."
- For the presumed minority of readers who do find it odd that the article has so few professional reviews, this talk page and the now-closed AfD discuss the subject in extreme detail, and they are just a couple of clicks away.
- For the subset of readers who are both struck by the lack of professional reviews and motivated to try and fix it, they will have one of two experiences:
- They will search for professional reviews with which to improve the article, find none, understand that the article was constructed using what was available, and then be in the same boat with all the rest of us here; OR
- They will search for professional reviews and find one or more than the editors here were unable to find, for whatever reason, and they will try to make the article better based upon what they found. That's a good thing.
In any case, I don't feel like it's our job as content creators to use the body of the article proper to essentially apologize for the lack of available sources. That seems to be the gist of the rationale for including the fact that the RT aggregator hasn't listed any reviews for the film. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Fathom
Content is about Fathom really, but if we are going to say it, we just summarize the source, we don't do our own analysis. If we are going to say something like this we should also say something like "As of December 2017 it was ranked 6,761 in the "all time domestic gross" list at Box Office Mojo and 197 in the "Top Movies in the Past 365 Days" list there." ref Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it belongs at all. Whether this was the second-highest grossing of their films, the lowest grossing, the highest or somewhere in the middle doesn't contribute to the reader's understanding of the film unless and until the production company itself becomes a large, noteworthy business. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- The section I added the info was the box office/release section. This info is definitely relevant to the performance of the movie, and Variety (magazine) is a reliable source to use. This source gives context to the performance of the movie, as one might want to know how the movie did compared to other Fathom movies. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This info is definitely relevant to the performance of the movie
It's relevant to the performance of the movie in comparison to other Fathom films. So if you were to add it to Fathom Events, I'd be perfectly fine with that. But in comparison to films in general, this film's success relative to other Fathom films is meaningless. Hell, most readers will have to click the blue text in the lede to even know what Fathom Events is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)- The fact that many people don't know about Fathom Events is irrelevant. Many people also have no clue what "BoxOfficeMojo" is, but that source is cited extensively on various Wikipedia articles to prove that "this movie is the seventh highest-grossing political documentary of all time", etc. Facts like these, regardless of whether they come from Variety or BoxOfficeMojo, or whether they have to do with all movies or only Fathom Events, are notable enough for a movie to add. I am OK adding the BOM ranking as well for IGH, BTW. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Many people also have no clue what "BoxOfficeMojo" is, but that source is cited extensively on various Wikipedia articles
We're not citing Fathom as a source. We're not talking about citing them as a source. I'm fine with the BOM rankings, just not that particular claim, because the BOM rankings have built-in context. Saying it's the second-highest grossing film distributed by a company nobody's ever heard of is just plain meaningless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- The fact that many people don't know about Fathom Events is irrelevant. Many people also have no clue what "BoxOfficeMojo" is, but that source is cited extensively on various Wikipedia articles to prove that "this movie is the seventh highest-grossing political documentary of all time", etc. Facts like these, regardless of whether they come from Variety or BoxOfficeMojo, or whether they have to do with all movies or only Fathom Events, are notable enough for a movie to add. I am OK adding the BOM ranking as well for IGH, BTW. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- The section I added the info was the box office/release section. This info is definitely relevant to the performance of the movie, and Variety (magazine) is a reliable source to use. This source gives context to the performance of the movie, as one might want to know how the movie did compared to other Fathom movies. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the two users who wish to remove the information about the performance of the film desire to censor the facts about the film's success. There's not really a good reason not to include the material, especially since a reliable source discusses that information in its article about the film. desmay (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment on content, not on contributors. Your comment does not provide any policy based reason for inclusion (see WP:DUE for an explicit denouncement of your "the RS mentions it, so we should, too" argument). In addition, cries of "censorship" are one of the absolute worst arguments on WP, as; "Censorship!" is the battlecry of the POV warrior. Your userpage does nothing to diminish that impression, and indeed, furthers it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- The content does not violate WP:UNDUE. Not many movies are Fathom films, and most of them make well under $1 million. A Fathom movie with such high relative notability, coverage, and box office is not common. I think 90s guy is right when he says that this source gives context. It is not "trivia." You also made a WP:PERSONAL attack against me when telling me not to make personal attacks. This line sticks out: 'Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". My user page has nothing to do with my commenting here. desmay (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
A Fathom movie with such high relative notability, coverage, and box office is not common.
I've bolded the relevant word. Our article on Fathom is barely 3kb in text (205 words). I've already checked for further sources, and with a concerted effort, I might be able to add another 100 words or so to the article. The reason is a matter of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTABILITY of the company. It's simply not a very notable company. Perhaps notable enough to survive and RfD, but certainly not a major player, in any sense. Now; they might distribute a film that achieves more notability, and indeed they did with this one. But that doesn't make the performance of their other films more notable. There are works by Dickens, Haggard, Poe, Twain, King and other obviously notable authors that are not, themselves notable enough for articles. Indeed, they're not even mentioned outside of a bibliography on the author's page.- So the suggestion that the performance of this film, in relation to the performance of several non-notable films achieves WP:DUE weight is a non-starter. It doesn't. That being said, a filmography over at Fathom Events might very well be due. In fact, I would likely support such an edit, were it contested. Such an edit could very well include this very information without batting a single eye, because the context at that page is such that this film's performance relative to other Fathom films would be due there. But here? It's pure puffery. In the history of cinema, under the year 2017, no historian will ever note that this was Fathom's best performing release. But Conservapedia would certainly harp on and on about that information.
You also made a WP:PERSONAL attack against me when telling me not to make personal attacks.
LOL No, I didn't. That's such an incredibly inane claim that it literally made me laugh.My user page has nothing to do with my commenting here.
I did not connect your user page to your comments here, except in the general sense of pointing out that they reinforce the negative impression given by the actual line of argument you have taken here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- The content does not violate WP:UNDUE. Not many movies are Fathom films, and most of them make well under $1 million. A Fathom movie with such high relative notability, coverage, and box office is not common. I think 90s guy is right when he says that this source gives context. It is not "trivia." You also made a WP:PERSONAL attack against me when telling me not to make personal attacks. This line sticks out: 'Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". My user page has nothing to do with my commenting here. desmay (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment on content, not on contributors. Your comment does not provide any policy based reason for inclusion (see WP:DUE for an explicit denouncement of your "the RS mentions it, so we should, too" argument). In addition, cries of "censorship" are one of the absolute worst arguments on WP, as; "Censorship!" is the battlecry of the POV warrior. Your userpage does nothing to diminish that impression, and indeed, furthers it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I found two other sources discussing the Fathom Events in 2017, and they note that the company had a record year in 2017: [2][3] (IGH, thus, was part of that "record year") This is the context of including it here. Of course, there does not appear to be consensus for including it, so I won't argue further. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Actrually, those two sources give it a lot more weight, especially the business insider one (because it's not an industry-focused publication and it has a large readership). When there's multiple, independent reliable sources covering something, it's clearly of wider interest than would be implied by a single, industry-focused source mentioning it. Add a bit to the contentious text about how this was a part of a record year for them to establish a clear context, and I'll be happy to support inclusion, now.
- e.g. "The screenings of Is Genesis History? were one of six sets of events organized by Fathom Events that earned more than $2 million, making 2017 a record earnings year for the company." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: That looks good to me. I will add this in the next few hours, unless you do it first. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- no - this ref putatively from business insder is a press release by Fathom and the "screendaily" ref from the next day is churnalism, directly based on the press release. Fathom is an event promoting company and they promote themselves too. The proposed content is UNDUE with these kind of PR-driven bad refs. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Shit, you're right. I didn't notice that (though I would have if I'd gone ahead with formatting the refs and adding my version like I was going to do). The Screen Daily one looks okay, though. So now I'm on the edge. With three solid refs, I felt that this was due enough. With two, I'm not so sure. (Obviously, with just one I felt it was undue.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- screendaily is just churnalism - little websites that churn out new "articles" by summarizing press releases; there is no independent reporting there. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've seen it used more than a few times in film articles. I'm not so sure I agree with your summary of them, though I'll admit they're not the best source. As I said, I'm back on the fence about this. If 1990'sguy can dig up a few more sources, I'm willing to concede that this has gotten enough coverage as to make it part of the narrative of this film. Right now, I'm not really comfortable adding it in, even if I'm not as stridently opposed as I was when there was only one decent source. I could still get behind using these sources to write a bit more about how good a year they had over at Fathom Events. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- What do you think about any of these sources? [4][5][6][7][8] --1990'sguy (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: I would appreciate your opinion on these, regardless of your answer. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I missed this page on my watchlist for some reason. Indiewire and the Desert Sun are good, the rest look sketchy to me. Unfortunately, neither of them support this material. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: Here are the Wikipedia articles for the "sketchy" websites, in case it makes a difference: The Numbers (website), Film Journal International. The Indiewire article mentions IGH near the bottom. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Okay. I don't see how having stub articles changes anything. My commentary on their quality was based on the fact that the Numbers website doesn't provide any editorial policy, or any way of verifying the numbers, and I can't find enough coverage of them to conclude that they have a reputation for accuracy. My comments on the film Journal source were based on the fact that there's no byline (except "Cinemas News" which is entirely uninformative) and there's no editorial policy. Also, I did notice that both of those sources mention Fathom, but they don't support the "Fathom's best year, thanks in part to Is Genesis History" content that is being discussed here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: Here are the Wikipedia articles for the "sketchy" websites, in case it makes a difference: The Numbers (website), Film Journal International. The Indiewire article mentions IGH near the bottom. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I missed this page on my watchlist for some reason. Indiewire and the Desert Sun are good, the rest look sketchy to me. Unfortunately, neither of them support this material. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: I would appreciate your opinion on these, regardless of your answer. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- What do you think about any of these sources? [4][5][6][7][8] --1990'sguy (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've seen it used more than a few times in film articles. I'm not so sure I agree with your summary of them, though I'll admit they're not the best source. As I said, I'm back on the fence about this. If 1990'sguy can dig up a few more sources, I'm willing to concede that this has gotten enough coverage as to make it part of the narrative of this film. Right now, I'm not really comfortable adding it in, even if I'm not as stridently opposed as I was when there was only one decent source. I could still get behind using these sources to write a bit more about how good a year they had over at Fathom Events. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- screendaily is just churnalism - little websites that churn out new "articles" by summarizing press releases; there is no independent reporting there. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Shit, you're right. I didn't notice that (though I would have if I'd gone ahead with formatting the refs and adding my version like I was going to do). The Screen Daily one looks okay, though. So now I'm on the edge. With three solid refs, I felt that this was due enough. With two, I'm not so sure. (Obviously, with just one I felt it was undue.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- no - this ref putatively from business insder is a press release by Fathom and the "screendaily" ref from the next day is churnalism, directly based on the press release. Fathom is an event promoting company and they promote themselves too. The proposed content is UNDUE with these kind of PR-driven bad refs. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: That looks good to me. I will add this in the next few hours, unless you do it first. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
OR
Calling the Orlando reviewer's review a satire is WP:OR - citing a talk page discussion (diff, diff) as though it is a source is .... incompetent. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's common knowledge -- I hope you don't think the Orlando commentator is being sincere when he says "Just a guess, the twist is going to be that the movie answers its own question with a resounding 'NO!'" If so, the reviewer is unqualified to review the movie, not even knowing what it is about, and the review should be removed. :) It's OK to note that this is satire for readers (so they know he's joking, rather than simply not knowing what the movie is about), and it only requires one extra word. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Obvious satire is obvious. There should not be any argument over whether that quote was satirical. But it doesn't need to be labelled as such in the article. Labeling satire often defeats the purpose, and if the original source is not itself labelled, it is a technical violation of OR to label it in the article. So it's both a technical violation and poor form. I say leave out the label. Anyone who can't grok that it's satire probably doesn't grok satire anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's not poor form (it's only one word, and it's well-placed, so it doesn't stand out in the sentence -- and I changed the wording from what it was prior to today), and there's nothing wrong with mentioning that it's satirical -- many readers would appreciate the clarification, and it gives context for the quote. I don't see how this constitutes original research -- it doesn't reach any conclusions not supported by the source, nor does it misrepresent the source in any way. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- That is a dangerous road to travel, and not how Wikipedia works. Others will weigh in here with time.
- Btw, in the mainstream view, the movie is pseudoscience and pseudohistory, so what the reviewer answered - what the non-creationist reviewers all answered - was indeed NO. Not satirical, but damn serious. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- "That is a dangerous road to travel" -- that is a ridiculous response. This dispute has nothing to do with the pseudoscience/pseudohistory stuff -- why are you bringing this up here? Talk about going off-topic. The fact that you can't see that this guy's comment (which he wrote before the movie was even released, and thus, before the non-creationist reviewers commented on the movie) is satirical shows exactly why we should note that it's a satirical comment.
- BTW, if adding the single word "satirical" somehow violates WP:OR, your postulation that he's somehow being serious that the movie somehow argues for an old Earth and evolution violates it ten times more seriously. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- It is a dangerous road to travel for the reason that unsourced OR is always dangerous. We don't invite editors to evaluate things in that way. I am sorry you don't understand why the nature of the film is relevant; from the perspective of mainstream science and history, the answer to the question the movie title asks, is no. The Orlando columnist says that. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- ^ What he said. It may be a technical violation, but that's still a violation. The4 fact that it's poor form (because it really doesn't need to be labelled) compounds that past something I would just shrug and overlook. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog, your response is the definition of original research -- creating interpretations of the sources (more accurately, misinterpretations) that the sources don't imply at the slightest. The plain, straightforward meaning of the sources cited is that the commentator is being satirical and that IGH argues for a recent creation. I feel like I'm in an English literature class when I see you postulate hidden meanings to the commentator's comment. I can see how your OR is dangerous. And no, this dispute has nothing to do with the nature of the movie. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Mpants doesn't support this; the revert was based on the claim that they did. Please remove "satirically" or make it clear that you will not revert its removal. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog is correct. It's worth pointing out that were this an RfC I would say weak oppose, but oppose nonetheless. We should not be attempting to characterize the sources beyond what they do so themselves. It's not that I think it's an incorrect characterization, but because this article is controversial among us three who seem to watch it, and it's better to stick to the letter of policy in such cases. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with this (I'm tempted to invoke WP:IGNORE or WP:5P5), but I'll respect the consensus and leave it alone. As the dust settles, I can see that it's not very important. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that I'm not reverting this edit for exactly the same reason: it's better to stick to the letter of policy on an article in which we can start this sort of row over a single word. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with this (I'm tempted to invoke WP:IGNORE or WP:5P5), but I'll respect the consensus and leave it alone. As the dust settles, I can see that it's not very important. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog is correct. It's worth pointing out that were this an RfC I would say weak oppose, but oppose nonetheless. We should not be attempting to characterize the sources beyond what they do so themselves. It's not that I think it's an incorrect characterization, but because this article is controversial among us three who seem to watch it, and it's better to stick to the letter of policy in such cases. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Mpants doesn't support this; the revert was based on the claim that they did. Please remove "satirically" or make it clear that you will not revert its removal. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog, your response is the definition of original research -- creating interpretations of the sources (more accurately, misinterpretations) that the sources don't imply at the slightest. The plain, straightforward meaning of the sources cited is that the commentator is being satirical and that IGH argues for a recent creation. I feel like I'm in an English literature class when I see you postulate hidden meanings to the commentator's comment. I can see how your OR is dangerous. And no, this dispute has nothing to do with the nature of the movie. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- ^ What he said. It may be a technical violation, but that's still a violation. The4 fact that it's poor form (because it really doesn't need to be labelled) compounds that past something I would just shrug and overlook. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- It is a dangerous road to travel for the reason that unsourced OR is always dangerous. We don't invite editors to evaluate things in that way. I am sorry you don't understand why the nature of the film is relevant; from the perspective of mainstream science and history, the answer to the question the movie title asks, is no. The Orlando columnist says that. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Obvious satire is obvious. There should not be any argument over whether that quote was satirical. But it doesn't need to be labelled as such in the article. Labeling satire often defeats the purpose, and if the original source is not itself labelled, it is a technical violation of OR to label it in the article. So it's both a technical violation and poor form. I say leave out the label. Anyone who can't grok that it's satire probably doesn't grok satire anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Which quote from blog on biologos
we formerly had this:
According to Gregg Davidson, Joel Duff, and Ken Wolgemuth writing for The BioLogos Foundation, despite the "excellent" cinematography of the film, "the narrative that accompanied the rich display of God’s amazing creation fell far short of reflecting what we actually find revealed in nature."[1]
I had proposed this here:
According to Gregg Davidson, Joel Duff, and Ken Wolgemuth writing for The BioLogos Foundation, "While the ubiquitous misrepresentations promulgated in this film are disturbing in their own right, their stated association with the gospel message is what is most alarming..... When they (Christian youth) go to college or start investigating the evidence themselves and discover they have been misled, the natural tendency is to assume that it is Christianity itself that has failed them. Unbelieving seekers who see this film will likewise be confronted with the confounding association of the truth of Christ with massive misrepresentations about natural history. An enormous stumbling block to faith is laid at the feet of these poor souls, standing between them and the cross."[1]
The latter is the focus of the review - that the movie is deceptive and bad for everybody (including christians); the former version is almost a classic instance of pulling a positive quote out of a negative movie review to sell the movie.
References
- ^ a b Davidson, Gregg; Duff, Joel; Wolgemuth, Ken (March 1, 2017). "A Geological Response to the Movie "Is Genesis History?"". The BioLogos Foundation. Retrieved August 22, 2017.
-Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I made my rationale for the first quote clear in this edit summary. I chose it because it was concise. The proposed quote is significantly longer. Either way, we should mention what they thought about the movie's cinematgraphy -- it's a valid aspect of movie reviews, and mentioning it here shows that the reviewers only had a problem with the movie's message. In fact, the cinematography is probably a large reason why they think the movie is deceptive, since a well-made movie tends to be more convincing to viewers.
- But, I think it would be better if we summarize what they said, instead of a quote. I propose this:
"While complementing the film's cinematography, Gregg Davidson, Joel Duff, and Ken Wolgemuth, writing for The BioLogos Foundation, argued that it promoted "ubiquitous misrepresentations" about science and would harm the gospel both for Christians and non-Christians because of them and the inconsistencies to natural history."[1]
References
- --1990'sguy (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- You are still including the one note of praise out of an overwhelmingly negative review which continues the main problem with this content, which you added when you created this and reverted to. This is not OK. Also the review doesn't say that the movie just "promotes" misrepresentations according to the review, it makes them. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with including what they thought about the cinematography -- cinematography is in a different category from the rest of the review. The rest of the review is about the movie's content. I am fine with changing the word "promoted" to "made" or "makes". --1990'sguy (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- You are still including the one note of praise out of an overwhelmingly negative review which continues the main problem with this content, which you added when you created this and reverted to. This is not OK. Also the review doesn't say that the movie just "promotes" misrepresentations according to the review, it makes them. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I prefer the first quote. The second -while it may strike closer to the heart of the point of the review- doesn't really address the film at all. It discusses the effect the author believes the film will have (or has had) upon audiences. The first describes something good about the film in order to contrast with the overall negative review. It's a classic film review for a negatively-received film on WP. Summarizing the review, as 1990'sguy has suggested seems to me to be the best, as the proposed summary encompasses all three points of the two quotes combined, and does so succinctly.
- I fully reject the notion that it's undue to mention the one note of praise in an overwhelmingly negative review: That bit of positivity is given to contrast the overall negativity, by the author, on purpose. It frames the negativity, establishes the author as having actually watched and analyzed the film (instead of simply dismissing it out of hand as Christian propaganda as much other coverage has done) and serves also as the one point of positivity in the reception section, contrasting the rest of the negativity there. I believe it's very important, when writing articles about such a negatively received film, for us to find those rare point of praise and mention them (without giving them undue weight). Most (bad) film articles I have read do this, and I find it very informative and balanced. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input but that quote misrepresents the review, and dramatically. This is not how we use refs. Please bear in mind that the purpose of the movie is to persuade people that Genesis is history; that is why it exists. Content addressing what the movie is doing is very on point. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog, I proposed a third option that involves summarizing both what the reviewers thought about the movie itself and its effect. I used both quotes for my proposal, and it is concise and is a summary rather than some picked-out quote. Your latest comment ignores this. And (correct me if I misinterpreted you, MPants), MPants said that my new proposal is the best option of the three. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I addressed that above. The proposed quote still gives half of its content to the praise of the look of the movie; this does not reflect the source. There is one brief paragraph where they say a couple of nice things; the rest of is devoted to describing how this movie is a very bad thing. What we say about the source should reflect the source. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Half? I think you need to reread my proposed summary. And as I stated above, the movie's cinematography and aesthetics is a completely different category from its content -- their criticism and focus obviously were on the content (which my version makes very clear), but you're opposed to including their thoughts on a major (and essential) aspect of moviemaking. Including this also shows that this is a balanced review, as MPants pointed out. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hm. Yes not half but not appropriate in weight yet. How about
"While complimenting the film's cinematography, Gregg Davidson, Joel Duff, and Ken Wolgemuth, writing for The BioLogos Foundation, said that the movie makes "ubiquitous" and "massive" misrepresentations about science and natural history, and associates those misrepresentations with Christianity. They said that the association will harm the faith of young Christians when they learn science and natural history, and will make it harder to evangelize non-believers.
This would be a more accurate summary of what they said. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)- Change "complimenting" to "praising" and I'm okay with that summary, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- For the record, cinematography is a huge aspect of film-making, which can make or break a film. Compare a film by The Asylum, such as Transmorphers to one of the equally-poorly-written-directed-and-acted Transformers (film series). The only real difference in quality between the two are the special effects and the cinematography. Yet one of those will emerge a clear victor in terms of which is the better overall movie. And yes, I've had to watch all of them. My kids are at that age where "giant robots" equals "OH MY GOD I WANNA WATCH IT PLEASE DADDY PLEASE LET ME WATCH IT!!!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog, why is your two-sentence summary better than my condensed version that is half as long and long one sentence? They both say essentially the same thing. Readers like it when we concisely convey what the sources say -- if they want additional details or more information, the actual articles are only two clicks away. Can we at least try to keep the summary at a sentence long? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- What about this? It would be nice to keep it at a sentence.
"While praising the film's cinematography, Gregg Davidson, Joel Duff, and Ken Wolgemuth, writing for The BioLogos Foundation, said that the movie makes "ubiquitous" and "massive" misrepresentations about science and natural history and associates those misrepresentations with Christianity, something which they argue will harm evangelism for both Christians and non-Christians."
--1990'sguy (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)- The version i proposed is better because it more accurately reflects what the source says and what it gives weight to. Again there are about 12 paragraphs and one - one of the shortest - mentions the technical values. We are no where near 12:1 in weight. Your last version is OKish but "evangelism for Christians" is different from the loss of faith that the authors talk about "When they (Christian youth) go to college or start investigating the evidence themselves and discover they have been misled, the natural tendency is to assume that it is Christianity itself that has failed them." I tried to capture this in the last version I offered with "will harm the faith of young Christians when they learn science and natural history"... Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hm. Yes not half but not appropriate in weight yet. How about
- Half? I think you need to reread my proposed summary. And as I stated above, the movie's cinematography and aesthetics is a completely different category from its content -- their criticism and focus obviously were on the content (which my version makes very clear), but you're opposed to including their thoughts on a major (and essential) aspect of moviemaking. Including this also shows that this is a balanced review, as MPants pointed out. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I addressed that above. The proposed quote still gives half of its content to the praise of the look of the movie; this does not reflect the source. There is one brief paragraph where they say a couple of nice things; the rest of is devoted to describing how this movie is a very bad thing. What we say about the source should reflect the source. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog, I proposed a third option that involves summarizing both what the reviewers thought about the movie itself and its effect. I used both quotes for my proposal, and it is concise and is a summary rather than some picked-out quote. Your latest comment ignores this. And (correct me if I misinterpreted you, MPants), MPants said that my new proposal is the best option of the three. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input but that quote misrepresents the review, and dramatically. This is not how we use refs. Please bear in mind that the purpose of the movie is to persuade people that Genesis is history; that is why it exists. Content addressing what the movie is doing is very on point. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
single sentence is somewhat arbitrary...but here... "While praising the film's cinematography, Gregg Davidson, Joel Duff, and Ken Wolgemuth, writing for The BioLogos Foundation, said that the movie makes "ubiquitous" and "massive" misrepresentations about science and natural history and associates those misrepresentations with Christianity, something which they argue will harm the faith of Christians and efforts to evangelize non-Christians."
Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Good change. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Reactions section
The following is contested, on the basis that this is mostly in-bubble, primary sources, and is altogether UNDUE.
The movie was endorsed by young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis,[1] the Institute for Creation Research,[2] Creation Ministries International,[3] the Associates for Biblical Research,[4] and Timothy G. Standish of the Geoscience Research Institute.[5] Jerry Newcombe of the politically conservative website WND also endorsed the film,[6] along with WORLD magazine.[7] In April 2018, Newsmax, using a criteria of highest box office scores and making a "significant impact", rated the film at twelfth place out of its "top 25 conservative documentaries of all time."[8]
Patheos bloggers published positive,[9] negative,[10] and ambivalent[11] reviews about the film, as well as interviews with key cast members.[12]
References
- ^ Ham, Ken (January 6, 2017). "Is Genesis History? Film Coming to Theaters". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved August 22, 2017.
- ^ Hebert, Jake; Thomas, Brian (March 1, 2017). "Reviewing 'Is Genesis History?'". Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved August 22, 2017.
- ^ Sarfati, Jonathan. "Is Genesis History?". Creation Ministries International. Retrieved August 22, 2017.
- ^ Smith, Jr., Henry B. (January 18, 2017). "A Great New Film: Is Genesis History?". Associates for Biblical Research. Retrieved August 22, 2017.
- ^ Standish, Timothy G. (February 17, 2017). "A Review of the Documentary Film "Is Genesis History?"". Geoscience Research Institute. Retrieved September 12, 2017.
- ^ Newcombe, Jerry (February 14, 2017). "'Is Genesis History?' – A Must-See Movie". WND. Retrieved August 24, 2017.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - ^ "Deep time out – WORLD". world.wng.org. Retrieved 2017-08-30.
- ^ Anderson, Troy (April 4, 2018). "Newsmax's Top 25 Conservative Documentaries of All Time". Newsmax. Retrieved April 6, 2018.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - ^ Morris, G. Shane (2017-02-22). "'Is Genesis History?' Is Not Your Dad's Creationist Documentary". Patheos. Retrieved 2017-09-03.
- ^ Seidensticker, Bob (2017-04-18). "Movie Review: "Is Genesis History?"". Patheos. Retrieved 2017-09-03.
- ^ Williams, Chris (2017-05-02). "Kicking off summer with "Is Genesis History," MST3K, Batman and more!". Patheos. Retrieved 2017-09-03.
- ^ Hamby, Dewayne (2017-02-20). "'Is Genesis History?': Answering Age-Old Earth Age Questions". Patheos. Retrieved 2017-09-03.
Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Kind of goes back to why this should've been deleted back at the afd. The keep !voters kept saying that it should be kept because it's a movie and should be treated as a movie rather than consider the fringe subject matter. Then we kept it on the basis that it should be treated like a film, despite the fact that there wasn't significant in-depth coverage of the film itself (only some announcements/press releases/buzz published in local news sources). Now we have an article about a movie that we're supposed to treat like a movie, but we cite sources that are not known as reliable sources for film criticism. Unsurprisingly, it's an article about fringe documentary filled with sources covering it because they also promote that fringe theory, not because they're reliable sources for film reviews. If there's an argument to include this because they're reliable sources for creationism, etc. then we're not actually treating it as a movie. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)