Talk:RoboCop (2014 film)

2013/2014

So the article says 2014 but the poster says 2013? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opaqueambiguity (talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Reception section misleading

There was no advanced reception of this movie that Weller saw. According to the Youtube video, Weller saw the 1987 movie in Dallas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.166.155 (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Cast

The infobox recommends the cast be listed based on the billing block. The poster gives top billing to four actors (visible in preview) and also includes four others in the billing block, which can be seen in high resolution versions of the poster. Please discuss if you think only the top billed actors should be listed, or if the article should list based on the whole billing block. WP:MOSFILM is flexible, the guideline is to avoid overcrowding the infobox, if there is local consensus to do something else that works too. -- 109.76.247.81 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment is in response to an unexplained edit shortening the cast list. -- 109.76.247.81 (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Billing block restored, again. -- 109.77.178.209 (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Dreyfus

might be worth speaking a litte about the hubert dreyfus character and the real hubert dreyfus who wrote the book, what computers can't do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.62.42 (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

if the Production section of the article was much longer and included details about the writing process and we had a source explaining reference then maybe we could squeeze it in but I think it is a longshot. -- 147.252.95.85 (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

i defer to the judgment of others, but i would think that allusions might be fitting for an article about the film. the fact that sen. hubert dreyfus paraphrases one of the main points raised by the real dreyfus in his book (the issue of human experience being what something closed off to robots) i think clinches the reference, and it's an allusion likely lost on most since the real dreyfus is a rather obscure reference. what i find particularly interesting or useful in highlighting this allusion is the way that it helps to contrast the concerns of this remake (setting it apart, and giving it some merit apart from cgi etc.) from the issues that were highlighted in the original. i'm just making the point.... chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.62.42 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Anyone else who noticed the use of Focus' [[Hocus Pocus (instrumental) |Hocus Pocus]] as background music during the shooting range scene with Mattox? Is this worth mentioning in the article? Ximalas (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, no. Seems to be just a bit of trivia. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The music section only covers the score. If you can find suitable sources there should be room to discuss the soundtrack or failing that songs used in the film (even if they aren't released as a soundtrack album). Found some information about songs used in the film but I don't think it is a good enough source. -- 147.252.95.85 (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Solved, but the table format isn't quite right. First time I've done one of those. Hope some one can make it perfect.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Fourth Wall?

The article ends by saying that Novak talks to the audience by breaking the fourth wall. Is this really breaking the fourth wall since he is playing the part of a talk show host and so it would not be out of character to be talking to the camera as if it were his own show. My understanding of breaking fourth wall is that its when its totally out of keeping with the story and unexpected. The movie starts outwith Novak talking into the camera and into the audience at the very start of the film too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw the movie and then I read this article. So I might be slightly biased, but it seems clear to me that the prose refers to the audience of the television show in the movie, not of the movie RoboCop. But in case I'm biased, I just copy edited it for explicit clarification of that. How's that grab ya? Thanks! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 06:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no big deal I was just putting it forth for discussion but your revision does clarify it much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Plot inaccurate/lacks information

For anyone who has watched the movie, reading through the plot will find several discrepancies. For example, the information that Robocop took prints from the gun in the warehouse is left out. More details should be added to the plot for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.102.118 (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree the plot is not very well written. "Norton is able to reach him first and reveals the truth". What truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:441:501:0:0:0:806 (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:DAILYMAIL

An editor is indiscriminately deleting everything from the Daily Mail, even what are clearly non-contentious film reviews.[1] The deletions ignore the WP:GOODFAITH efforts of other editors to improve articles, they ignore WP:STATUSQUO, and also they ignore any of the subtleties in the discussions around WP:DAILYMAIL acting like it was a clear ban when it was absolutely not. It shows haste and a further lack of good faith to roll back multiple unrelated edits instead of reverting the one edit that restore the deprecated source.

If a source is deprecated by all means replace it with a better source! Make some effort. If you want to argue that a film review is redundant, then make that argument. If you are going to delete give it some due consideration and explain it properly, editors added in good faith, so show a little more good faith when deleting. WP:BRD

WP:DAILYMAIL does not support that assertion

"should not be used or trusted for any claim" 

that is far more than what the guidelines say and not what deprecated actually means. -- 109.76.137.4 (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would support replacing the Daily Mail review with another because critical reception sections should sample the most authoritative reviews possible. Daily Mail is not a Top Critic at Rotten Tomatoes, and it would not be at Metacritic. It could be okay to reference it for a film where not many reviews are available, meaning to use non-Top Critics. Here, though, this mainstream film has 48 Top Critics on RT to choose from, plus 41 from Metacritic (though there is likely overlap). Pinging David Gerard to draw his attention to this discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleting is easy, improving articles is hard. Replacing with better sources is not as easy as deleting. I think some people have trouble understanding the meaning of the word deprecated. This editor is trampling over stable articles and is not even trying to make reasonable arguments, and instead asserting "should not be used or trusted for any claim" which WP:DAILYMAIL does not say. If I believed this editor wasn't deleting indiscriminately and made a good faith effort to replace it with something else that be reasonable. This isn't a British film so maybe there is an argument to be made that there is no need to include Daily Mail here but he should actually make that argument or leave well enough alone. Erik makes a reasonable argument but David did not even try. I complained here on this article in particular but the bigger problem is the pattern of indiscriminate, overreaching, and unnecessary deletes. (Not specifically related to this article but deleting the reference to the Daily Mail from a British classic like Get Carter [2] is particularly egregious. Good luck finding a replacement there. I may yet argue that delete later.) From skim reading his talk page other editors seem to have complained and actively encouraged him to delete instead of tagging or improving articles. Reverting multiple edits instead of the one relevant edit to that included the Daily Mail suggests he isn't paying much attention to his edits, making it more difficult to take his deletes in good faith. -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to use the Daily Mail. There is no exception for "but I like its film reviews" in WP:DAILYMAIL - this readdition clearly does not meet, and does not bother to meet, WP:BURDEN, which is policy - David Gerard (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not about "liking" the film reviews. The Daily Mail is mistrusted as news. I get that and support that. But film criticism isn't news. For example, Christopher Tookey used to review films for the Daily Mail, and he has a full career as a film critic and was highlighted here. Now it has Brian Viner, who is referenced by BBC here and here. It makes sense to deprecate Daily Mail for news coverage, but it appears punitive to extend this to banning film reviews. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

And yet, that isn't in the RFC. There is no carveout for reviews. And it's not at all clear that the Mail constitutes due coverage under WP:UNDUE. Given it's a deprecated source, why do we care what the DM says?

This question came up at WP:RSN recently, and there was no consensus to add a reviews carveout.

It's also unclear that Brian Viner is even notable - certainly his article doesn't seem to reach WP:NWRITER (and I've tagged it accordingly) - and all substantial content was created by a user called Brian viner - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry David, but I really don't think you don't give a shit about article integrity, I've watched you systematically go through thousands of wikipedia article eradicating Daily Mail links with no regard for context, structure or content. WP:DAILYMAIL has been heavily abused in erasing thousands of citations regardless of what they are. This is just another example of failing to identify correct citation use. A film review is a film review, like every other newspaper and news outlet Daily Mail have a critic, this is just citation discrimination. Govvy (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I openly and earnestly discriminate against citing deprecated sources that shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all, except in truly remarkable circumstances. I recall your original concern about deprecated sources was that you didn't like links to The Sun being removed, 'cos you had a relative working there - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Pfft, you really didn't understand what I said last time, clear to me you interpret and are self, judge, jury and executioner! You literarily called everyone that works for The Sun and it's news group untrustworthy, that's what I found offensive, I still find you offensive. Here is just enough example of your unconstructive editing. Govvy (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't see why anyone would have opened or participated in this discussion, on this page. It is clearly offtopic and is simply a relitigation (not a local interpretation) of WP:DAILYMAIL and belongs on WP:ANI or I don't know what other policy definition or dispute resolution forum. This is my introduction to WP:DAILYMAIL which I had never heard of. Thx. — Smuckola(talk) 15:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of rules, and I only know some of them, it is hard to know where to respond. Smuckola shows it is easy for an editor to not even be aware of of WP:DAILYMAIL, but WP:RSPSOURCES is much more useful anyway. I wouldn't know where to go with a high level policy discussion. I don't know what rules are the most important would have thought trying to improve the articles and improve the encyclopedia would be more important than guideline discouraging the use of the Daily Mail. Rules like WP:SR and WP:BRD seem far more fundamentally important. My understanding of the word deprecated is very different from this indiscriminate unconstructive deleting. So I concede this wasn't the best place to bring up the issue but please don't say it is not an issue.

Of all the things editors could spend their time on it surprises me that an editor would choose to spend their time on this, and put such a high priority on deleting non-contentious material from stable articles. Also continuing to claim "should not be used or trusted for any claim" is particularly disingenuous, and reverting multiple edits instead of the one relevant edit shows a lack of good faith, and how little attention David is paying to his edits.

It seems the review was added with others to contrast this film to the original,[3] and by including several different reviews as references the editor was making it clear to avoid WP:SYNTH or unfair generalizations. I don't think anyone is actually disagreeing with the generalization that this film was compared unfavorably to the Verhoven original but deletions should be careful because they undermine cases where editors are attempting to make a reasonable generalization (any time when you "some critics", or "several critics" that's a generalization that should have multiple sources).

I could work to expand the Critical response section, and try to improve the article, and I will probably do that too but I still resent the overkill of these indiscriminate deletes and the entirely unnecessary disruption of a stable articles. -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO doesn't support your case to keep sources that violate WP:RS, against WP:BURDEN, in the article in any way. If you think it does, could you please quote the text that you think does? - David Gerard (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN and WP:UNDUE are both policy - Wikipedia doesn't have many hard policies, but those are two of them. Adding the DM as a review source doesn't seem to meet either - it's not a reliable source in the language of WP:BURDEN, and no reason has been advanced why this review from a deprecated source is so important that not having it would violate NPOV. Even our DM-loving IP above concedes it serves only to add flavour to the review rundown - David Gerard (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Umm, your revert is dumb, BURDEN and UNDUE, don't apply, the cite is citing itself, it's not citing anything other than the context of the Daily Mail film review. You can't get another cite for that review, WP:DAILYMAIL exists to weed-out the fake and the false. A review is an opinion piece. Your summary in that revert makes no sense, have you read any of these policies you talk about properly? Also you started all this when you were the first one to remove it, so technically, STATUSQUO doesn't apply, why on earth you are pointing to that I don't know, in fact if you look at STATUSQUO, you're the one breaking that rule. Govvy (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks don't contribute to discussion. You've in fact already been to WP:RSN previously about use of deprecated sources, so you do in fact know perfectly well that's where you should go to relitigate the deprecation of the sources - David Gerard (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Calling your edit summary dumb is hardly a personal attack, get a grip. Not my fault you continue to falter. If you can't see your own problems you shouldn't continue to do what you are doing and stop popping policies that you're clearly not reading. Govvy (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You know precisely where to go if you want to have deprecated sources ruled usable, and it's WP:RSN and not here - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to read more about this policy and nothing I have read so far makes these indiscriminate deletes seem any less overreaching and unnecessary.
Not only is there WP:DAILYMAIL but there is a second discussion that no one bothered to mention at WP:DAILYMAIL2. The summary of the second discussion includes this statement:

"Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case."

These kinds of deletes of non-contentious statements are overreaching and not in keeping with what seem to be actually quite reasonable guidelines, which make sensible argument for skepticism, and reasonable recommendations to replace sources where possible. -- 109.76.199.30 (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You do realise the Daily Mail link was re-instated don't you? Govvy (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I did, but I can't be sure it would last. It seemed necessary to reiterate how unnecessary and disruptive these deletes are. There are always more readers than editors who actively comment, some of this might be useful to others, or start different discussions. -- 109.79.181.181 (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Delete review. WP:DAILYMAIL2 explicitly permits using The Daily Mail for non-controversial claims that are not available elsewhere, noting that WP:IAR covers such instances (please note that IAR is a policy while the Daily Mail ban is just a consensus). I would definitely consider a review from a prominent critic that is only available in The Daily Mail to come under such an exception. However I don't consider such an exception to apply here:
  1. The claim in the article is very general, so is not only replaceable but also making similar points to the other critics quoted in the article. It is not offering unique insight so in that sense it is also redundant, and we could remove it and the critical reception section would not be worse for it.
  2. I am not convinced—although I remain open to the possibility—that Viner is among the top tier of critics whose opinion carries authority, and therefore warrants an exception. For example, Viner does not seem to have equaled the stature of his predecessor at the Daily Mail (and incidentally I would support making Tookey's Daily Mail reviews an exception to the ban).

Betty Logan (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is a local consensus among objective reasonable editors to remove or replace a review that would be perfectly fair and I will abide by such decisions.

It is the ongoing indiscriminate deletes, by a hostile lone editor on a crusade against a publisher (not the actual contents of the references), with no efforts to replace or improve articles, that I object to. Claims that film reviews must be deleted are absurd. The failure to understand the meaning of the word deprecated, the over-reaching interpretations of the guidelines, the failure to respect the WP:STATUSQUO and the accusations of edit warring, are just plain rude. (This delete specifically wasn't even the worst, but the careless delete of references to the Charleston Daily Mail was ridiculous and probably the worst I've seen, so editors beware! Deletes of the Mail on Sunday are pretty unimpressive too though.[4] Editors might also want watch out for these kinds of indiscriminate deletes also being applied to reviews from WP:THESUN)

It is a strange luxury to even be talking about deleting problematic sources, rather than the more usual problem of no sources at all. Deleting is easy, improving articles is hard. I hope others who better understand the depths of wikipedia policy can do something to prevent this ongoing gouging of film articles. (If any film review deserves to be deprecated then Rex Reed should be first in line.) If the rules were clarified and there were clear examples of exemptions such as reviews from Christopher Tookey as suggested, that would be exceedingly helpful, and might allow me or others to revisit and revert these arbitrary deletes sometime in the future. Too much free time, but I should probably be doing other things. Thanks to all who added to the discussion. -- 109.79.181.181 (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO is an essay; policy overrides it. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is a specific warning that an agreement on a single talk page can't override broad consensus. You should probably read the material you cite - David Gerard (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the Daily Mail ban should not extend to Mail on Sunday because they have independent editorial oversight. I raised this issue myself at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#dailymail.co.uk_reversion:_eyes_wanted. However I stand by my comments above that losing the review under discussion here is not to the detriment of the article and in keeping with the current consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Predictably David Gerard didn't even wait for consensus to go his and on May 18, unilaterally deleted the review again,[5] while the discussion was still ongoing. -- 109.79.89.22 (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep review per WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Unless a review of a work of literature, film, theatre, television, video game, painting, sculpture or any arts in general, clearly espouses unacceptable ideas such as racism, antisemitism / Holocaust denial, etc, or the publication carrying the review is a venue for such ideas, each newspaper and / or magazine review should be judged on its own merits and each proposal for deletion of a review should be handled separately, with discussion focused on the qualifications of the reviewer, in comparison with the qualifications of his or her contemporaries and upon the quality of the review itself, again, in comparison with other contemporary reviews of the same work. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Considering the reasons are WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, that interpretation of WP:NOTCENSORED would appear to claim to invalidate basic sourcing policy. I suggest you are bizarrely misinterpreting WP:NOTCENSORED. I note also WP:ONUS, which states: "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article." This is part of WP:V, which is also policy - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

All of us accept the positioning of Wikipedia as a consensus-based project, otherwise we wouldn't be here. However, there is unlikely to be unanimity in favor of censorship, which is what some Wikipedians, myself included, consider to be exemplified in the barring of arts reviews emanating from a source which is not directly related to the content of the review itself. I agree that not all film reviews have a right to be cited in a Wikipedia film article, but deliberate exclusion of a citation of a book, theatre or film review is still censorship, pure and simple, no matter how one attempts to justify it. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Roman, that David is treating the Daily Mail thing as an out right ban when it isn't, he has been incoherent in conversation and inconsistent with edit summaries when removing citations, he fails to review citations properly. I am surprised that no one has taken him to WP:ARB or WP:ANI. Govvy (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, I understand your position, but I am also loath to personalize this matter. I live in the US and have never read the publication in question. However, it is a matter of principle with regard to arts reviews. If a review is eligible for inclusion if it emanates from one source, but ineligible if it comes from another source, then something is seriously amiss. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

From the same page as WP:NOTCENSORED comes WP:INDISCRIMINATE - which is reflected in the policy WP:ONUS. Just because we can does not mean we should, and we always apply editorial judgement. Trying to claim this is censorship still seems a bizarre misinterpretation of WP:NOTCENSORED - David Gerard (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not seen RoboCop (2014 film) and have no opinion with regard to the film itself. If I were to append inline cites to this film, those would come from reviews in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and in my home region newspaper Newsday. However, after arriving here from Erik's notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Daily Mail film reviews, I can do no less than oppose the deletion of a properly cited review which has not been accused of championing any previously mentioned sins. Whether the review should have been cited in the first place is open to discussion, but once it was, its peremptory removal without a discussion of its merits, if any, feels as if something wrong has happened and an artistic expression has been stifled. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Its lack of merits is failing WP:UNDUE as a deprecated source under WP:DAILYMAIL - a broad general consensus that the Daily Mail is generally prohibited - thus it should be deleted. Do you have a specific argument as to how it overcomes these? - David Gerard (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Judging by the content of the comments in this relatively sparsely attended discussion, the putative "broad general consensus that the Daily Mail is generally prohibited", does not appear to exhibit a broad general consensus for exclusion of current and historical arts reviews. There is an unhappy disputatious air about the matter and members of WP:WikiProject Film are proposing to carve out exceptions for a respected film critic and the Sunday edition. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying here is that they know very well there's a strong general consensus against such a move, and are attempting to declare a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? Where is this discussion occurring? I see on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film only a link back here.

Note that a local consensus against a broad general consensus - one which was ratified two years after the first run - WP:LOCALCONSENSUS explicitly states: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

And their specific example is precisely what you appear to be proposing: For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. There is an Arbitration Committee statement of principle on this matter.

Such a carve-out would need to be at WP:RSN level, at the very least. An attempt to carve out such an exception was essayed on RSN a few weeks ago, but didn't get any traction. If you feel one should, then that would be a good place to start, or maybe WP:VPP or similar (though I suspect VPP would bounce it to RSN, that being the noticeboard for sourcing). Certainly this talk page, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, are not that place - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Above statements, such as it appears punitive to extend this to banning film reviews 12:10, 6 May 2020 or I would definitely consider a review from a prominent critic that is only available in The Daily Mail to come under such an exception or I would support making Tookey's Daily Mail reviews an exception to the ban 14:39, 12 May 2020, or I agree that the Daily Mail ban should not extend to Mail on Sunday because they have independent editorial oversight 13:57, 20 May 2020 are a sample on this thread from two longtime regulars at WikiProject Film.

Ultimately, this matter will not be re-litigated on the RoboCop (2014 film) talk page, but since the announcement did appear at Talk:WikiProject Film, I felt bound to register my opposition to what I consider to be blanket censorship of specific arts reviews. Taking a wider view, RoboCop (2014 film) has no shortage of reviews, but a less well known film from the 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s or 1950s, reviewed by this publication, may be the only online review available for citation in such a film's Wikipedia entry.

Furthermore, since records harken back more than a century, if a literary figure, whether Shaw, Thomas Hardy or Graham Greene, published an arts review, the barring of such a review from being used as a citation would surely reflect to the detriment of Wikipedia users and of Wikipedia itself. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

They're not writing about Robocop, are they? So that's just whataboutery. Perhaps you need to take this discussion to WP:RSN if you want to carve out an exception for reviews, because at present there really isn't one in WP:DAILYMAIL - multiple paragraphs making your case here won't do the job you want them to. I'd suggest you not call the standard Wikipedia source-weighing process "censorship" if you want to convince people who don't already agree with you, though - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It was not my intention to equate the barring of art reviews citations, from one publication, with explicit censorship as practiced by despotic regimes. However, any denial of access to the arts still seems a form of censorship, although obviously not comparable to its totalitarian or authoritarian variety.

Admittedly, RoboCop (2014 film), which has been written-up in numerous publications, is not an example of an essential or unique arts review, but that is where this discussion was initiated, thus making it by default a stand of principle against exclusion of any otherwise acceptable arts review citations.

Finally, if this matter does make its way to WP:RSN, I hope that you will join the good faith contributors who feel that any impediment of approach to thoughts and ideas relating to the arts diminishes both Wikipedia and its users. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)