Talk:Redacted (film)

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

POV in lead paragraph[edit]

User:Alabamaboy wants to insert the following:

So far, the movie has received mostly negative reviews,[7] while the movie's financial performance has not been up to expectations.[8]

The selective use of the loaded statement "mostly negative reviews" does not accurately reflect the cited 46%/54% split. A neutral statement would be something like "So far, the movie has received mixed reviews" The comment on "expectations" is also loaded POV - who exactly had these expectations? How do you know? Who said that it hasn't performed up to them? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with the use of mixed reviews (although the indicators given in the article, like Rotten Tomatoes, don't show mixed but instead negative reviews). Expectations, though, is NPOV. That info comes from a San Fran newspaper which talked to Brandon Gray, publisher of Box Office Mojo. Gray said the low per-theater ratio made the film a flop for DePalma. While that info is in the main section of this article, I felt using "flop" in the lead was too POV so I went with the generic "which was below industry expectations." A reliable source if given for this info and it should be kept.--Alabamaboy (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, compare this article to Southland Tales, which debuted on the same weekend as Redacted, and had an almost identical takings per box-office. It also received mixed reviews, however its Wikipedia article does not emphasise the negativity that this article does. Given the controversial nature of the film itself it's inevitable that this article will attract a large amount of POV, unfortunately. This film seems to be one that people either love or hate, and I expect people are going to be arguing over the validity of the various figures and quotes for quite a while. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you--the article will attract a lot of attention both positive and negative. In fact, I deleted some POV vandalism here just an hour or so ago. But as long as the article provides both sides of how people view the film and backs up any info with reliable sources, I think we'll be okay. As for the other article Southland Tales, that movie article is actually much more complete than this one. This article needs sections on the Plot, Production, and Marketing (just as a start). Best,--Alabamaboy (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought, I have deleted the phrase "industry expectations". Neither of the citations says anything about "industry expectations". I understand that you are trying to insert something about the financial performance and have written your own interpretation to be neutral. However, the statement isn't explicitly supported by the citations - an attempt to '"go beyond" what is expressed in the sources' (WP:NOR). It also implies that there was some industry-wide consensus regarding the expected financial income, and as per the WP rules on consensus, you would have to provide a citation that this was indeed the case. Chris Bainbridge 18:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "needs infobox" tag[edit]

This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 20:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use and personality rights debate[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDNWXgM9F70 1of3 21:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited a blurb that explained this to clarify that the producer did not defend the director he just explained a different reason for the images being removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.53.225 (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There is no "allegedly" involved. 4 of the 5 murderers have been found guilty. Remove "allegedly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.8.13 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical & audience reaction[edit]

Let's not get out of hand with the critical and audience reaction section. Seems editors with varying points-of-view are trying to find as much evidence to support their particular position on the film. We don't need every random blogger's opinion expressed, nor an industrial statistical analysis of IMBD. Just stick with the facts, provide cites, and readers can dig deeper if they want. --ZimZalaBim talk 20:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you removed the quote from Tim Brayton? His review is linked to directly from the Rotten Tomatoes page on Redacted.[1] It's also available directly from a Rotten Tomatoes URL [2] . According to Rotten Tomatoes he is a recognised critic.[3]. If Rotten Tomatoes isn't considered a reliable source, then neither are their ratings, or the Metacritic ratings, or the Box Office Mojo ratings. In that case, most of the critical section should be removed. Please be consistent.
And you've just deleted the whole section on the IMDB ratings analysis (which was neutral, in that it acknowledged a varied viewpoint), and yet left in the totally negative and biased ratings analysis of web sites with fifty times less user reviews? And to think you accused me of POV pushing earlier today. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Rotten Tomatoes links to someone doesn't make them a reliable source - we must follow Wikipedia standards, not Rotten Tomatoes. If Tim Brayton is a notable reviewer, establish that fact and that his opinion satisfies WP:RS. As for the other links, I'm happy with their removal - I don't like any of these links that happen to mention online reviews that a handful of random people happened to submit. Get rid of them all, as far as I'm concerned. Random people who submit online reviews or votes are not reliable sources. As for the IMDB, no other article gets into that kind of statistical analysis - it reeks of trying to extract some kind of inference from the numbers. Just link to the aggregate, and let readers go do their own rationalization of the numbers. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) I disagree that someone must be notable in order for their quote to be used, based on WP:NNC. I have seen other articles where quotes from random people are used (I'm not saying that this is correct, but this article shouldn't be an exception).
2) If we are only allowed to quote notable people, then I agree that Tim Brayton isn't particularly notable. But I am confused over Wikipedia policy on notable people; "Nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The other people quoted here (Brandon Gray, Richard Johnson) are not personally notable; their lives have not been the topic of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Also WP:BLP1E suggests that in Gray's case it would be the website, not the person, that was notable.
3) I have deleted the user review content. I checked some other "controversial" films; United 93 (no user ratings), Natural Born Killers (IMDB rating only), The Last Temptation of Christ (no user ratings), Clockwork Orange (no user ratings), Fahrenheit 9/11 (no user ratings). So the consensus would be no ratings, or possibly IMDB only. I'm surprised there's no policy here. Chris Bainbridge 17:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the consensus is not to delete the ratings and review info like from Rotten Tomatoes. Film articles often have this information and listing movie articles which don't list it this info is not a reason to remove such referenced info from this article. I agree that the article shouldn't cite a blogger's review; however, citing Rotten Tomatoes is done in a large number of articles on Wikipedia. Also, the term "industry expectations" is neutral language to indicate that the movie is not performing well. That information is sourced to several extremely reliable media sources which are much more blunt than our language (using the terms flop and bomb). Please do not remove this referenced info unless consensus supports doing so.--Alabamaboy 18:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Did you actually look at my edit? I left in the ratings and review info from Rotten Tomatoes - just like the other reviews. I only removed the user ratings. I checked five articles - 100% of them had no user ratings. I am not cherry picking the articles - I selected them randomly from what I remembered as being controversial. The consensus is AGAINST including user ratings: "User ratings on websites should be avoided", "Consensus is that IMDB user ratings are inaccurate gauges of audience reception", Discussion concluding with consensus for no user ratings, "I'm concerned about the use of TV.com and IMDb.com user ratings. There aren't things allowed in film articles",
2) "industry expectations": The consensus seems to be against, both ZimZalaBim and myself have removed it on the basis of the fact that *it isn't what the articles actually say*. In this case saying "bombed in the US" would be an accurate quote, so why not just say what the article says instead of interpreting it in your own way? Chris Bainbridge 20:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised you might read that as actual encouragement to put that in the lead paragraph. It is not. Can you name another film article on Wikipedia which includes comments on the films performance in the leading paragraph? I'm not talking about the figures, they're ok, but actual quotes like "it bombed", "it was great" etc.? Chris Bainbridge 20:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cherry picked movie articles. For example, Lions for Lambs mentions the reviews and box-office performance in the lead. I could roll off endless number of film article which do this. More importantly, Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines states that: "The lead section of an article serves as a quick introduction to the film. The very first paragraph should cover the basics, such as the film's release year, alternate titles, genre(s), setting, country (if not the US), stars, and director (and possibly writer in some cases), as well as one or two of the most notable, verifiable facts about the film, such as "At the time of its release, it was the most expensive film ever made". The second paragraph should be a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why), whether it was a commercial success or not, whether any sequels to or remakes of the film were produced, and whether it had any lasting influence or significant impact outside the world of film."
Notice the parts I bolded. The lead should include a summary of the critical reaction and the box office response. If a film article doesn't have this information, that simply means the article is deficient. But removing this information from an article when the guidelines say it should be there, that strikes me as a POV edit. As for "industry expectations" again, that is NPOV language backed up by the sources. But if you prefer to go with the actually wording flop or bomb, we can do that (although I prefer the NPOV language).--Alabamaboy 01:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) You are fighting a straw man argument. I have never said that box office response shouldn't be in the lead.
2) IMDB and other user ratings are explicitly prohibited. I provided four links, including one to the consensus decision of WikiProject Film Style Guidelines that user ratings should not be allowed. Can you explain why you are repeatedly ignoring this and reverting my edit? You are POV pushing - no other film article includes user ratings.
3) Did you read what I wrote above as the reason for removing the "below industry expectations"? (Copy and paste from above:) After some thought, I have deleted the phrase "industry expectations". Neither of the citations says anything about "industry expectations". I understand that you are trying to insert something about the financial performance and have written your own interpretation to be neutral. However, the statement isn't explicitly supported by the citations - an attempt to '"go beyond" what is expressed in the sources' (WP:NOR). It also implies that there was some industry-wide consensus regarding the expected financial income, and as per the WP rules on consensus, you would have to provide a citation that this was indeed the case. Chris Bainbridge 09:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with removing the IMDB rating info and, for the record, I didn't place that info in the article and never concerned myself with it. My concern is the lead, where you keep removing info on the overall critical reaction to the movie and a summary of the film's financial response. As for the financial info, if you are so hell bent on opposing neutral language like "industry expectations" (which is valid b/c it is refering to industry experts in those media sources, who are quoted on how the film is performing) then we can always go with the actual language in the referenced articles. However, I feel that language is too POV. Would you instead prefer the phrase "disappointing box office returns so far" or something like that? If not, what summary language for the lead on the box office performance will you support?--Alabamaboy 13:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"IMDB rating info .. never concerned myself with it" - you re-added it twice within 24 hours.[4][5]
"the lead.. you keep removing info on .. the film's financial response" - no I don't, that was ZimZalaBim.[6].
"the lead.. you keep removing info on the overall critical reaction to the movie" - I only removed the "industry expectations" phrase. I understand your reason for re-phrasing, but have a logical problem with making a generalised statement about an entire industry based on one quote from a single person (Brandon Gray, the other article is an opinion piece by Catherine Elsworth, as far as I can tell she's just a reporter, not a notable industry expert). I would support changing it to "Brandon Gray labelled the US box office release a flop" or similar, since it's verifiable, more accurate than the existing text, and supported by the citation. Chris Bainbridge 17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph story by Catherine Elsworth is not an opinion piece. It is a standard journalistic article in a highly respected U.K. newspaper. The problem with "Brandon Gray labelled the US box office release a flop" is that multiple media sources have said the movie is not doing well financially. Do you have another suggestion? And if you need more media citations to support the fact that the film is not doing well, here's one more.--Alabamaboy 17:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion piece was a bad choice of words; it's not an opinion piece. The article quoting Brandon Gray is a primary source. The Elsworth article is a secondary source; she's cribbed together quotes and figures that have previously been published by others (San Francisco Chronicle, AFP), and then makes an (original research) argument that the film bombed based on a comparison with Disney's Enchanted. The problem here is that she's interpreting the data herself, instead of just reporting on what people have said. An accurate statement would be something like "Brandon Gray labelled the US box office release a flop, and Catherine Elsworth, writing in the Telegraph, said that it had bombed". Chris Bainbridge 18:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. I'm fine with that language in the lead, only adding ", publisher of Box Office Mojo" to clarify who Brandon Gray is. I've now inserted this language in the lead. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how can this be called a bomb or a flop if it only has been in theaters for like 3 weeks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.106.162 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Michael Medved's review should not be mentioned. After listening to his review of the movie, it is obvious he did not watch it, due to the many inaccuracies in his review regarding the movie. USS Noob Hunter (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb[edit]

Of course we don't know what worldwide sales will be. But in the USA it clearly appears headed for the bomb list. According to BoxOfficeMojo, during the first three weeks after release it has grossed a total of $60,456 domestically (as of December 10th, 2007 -- while the film was released on November 16th, 2007.) That's pretty bad. I think it is very likely that this will be added to List of U.S. box office bombs once it leaves the theaters. SunSw0rd (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.253.229 (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The film only received a 15 theater limited release in the US; I added some text to the lead to clarify this. According to Boxofficemojo, only 5 theaters are still showing it. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the speculation that it could be added to that list is wrong; limited theater releases aren't considered eligible for the list (Phantom of the Opera was removed for this reason). Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

negative criticism in lead[edit]

I removed this, it is very US centric and undue weight on the article (was repeated twice in article), whereas this movie has been released internationally only the opinion of 2 critics about the box office success in the US is mentioned, if you want to maintain NPOV as required by wikipedia a wider range of opinions would be required, and the English wikipedia is not for the US only. Thisglad (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Catherine Elsworth isn't a notable critic. Her analysis doesn't hold much weight (as I noted above), but I preferred the lead to be correct and verifiable rather than incorrect and edit warring over it. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep the consensus language. See previous discussions above for reasoning.--Alabamaboy (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it seems others had noted that on this page that it is undue weight to mention the same negative criticism twice in the article, including the lead, this violates Wikipedia:NPOV Thisglad (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
according to WP:NPOV Jimbo Wales believes
  * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
   * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
   * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

I do not believe the views of these critics can be proven to be a majority viewpoint at this time Thisglad (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the box office figures corroborate that the film 'bombed' at the box office. it is notable because de palma is a notable major motion picture director. this is not controversial: the reviews are properly sourced. i'm puzzled by the desire to redact properly sourced, notable information from this article. Anastrophe (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
following up on myself. i see that the box office criticism is listed both in the lede, and in the body. there's no need to have it in both places, not in this short an article. therefore, i've reversed myself and returned to thisglad's version. Anastrophe (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Wikipedia guidelines state that the lead of film articles should have info on the film's box office returns. I originally had NPOV language that stated "The film's financial performance is significantly below industry expectations" and had several references to back that up. Chris Bainbridge objected and that's why the specific language used in those media accounts was added. I've now added back in this NPOV language and suggest we go with it.--Alabamaboy (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been over this. The previous wording led to obvious questions, like "Well, what was the industry expecting?" because the cited sources said nothing about industry expectations. Anyway, I've changed it again to "The United States limited theatrical release had a poor response at the box office." I hope this one is okay with everyone. However, the lead is now very US centric since it doesn't mention the rest of the world. I expect when the film's released in the UK and other English speaking nations early next year there will be plenty of new sources re. box office response. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with your rewording. As for the world box office, I searched and didn't find any numbers. Once the numbers are in, we'll add them.--Alabamaboy (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blog as cite[edit]

I removed the following cite. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing just the blog source. Yes, blogs are not the best sources. But if the article is going to give info from this blog, then we should list the blog as the source. If you want to remove all that info also, then feel free to also remove the blog.--SouthernNights (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankfurt shooter claims to have been motivated by Redacted clip on youtube[edit]

Arid U., the guy sooting US soldiers at Frankfurt Airport claims he took the rape and killings for real. While the clip has been deleted on youtube, it's initial headline, created by a female German language user, was "US-Soldaten vergewaltigen unsere Schwestern! Wacht auf oh Ummah!" ("US soldiers are raping our sisters awake oh Ummah!").

Seems to be real Mahmudiyah killings. IQinn (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Redacted (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Redacted (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Redacted (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Redacted_(film)&oldid=1208092413"