Talk:The Quiet Ones (2014 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{Requested move/dated|The Quiet Ones}}

The Quiet Ones (film) → The Quiet Ones – It is unable for me to move the page into The Quiet Ones, the simple name for the film. Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 16:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move to The Quiet Ones (2014 film), otherwise will confuse with the independent NJ horror film The Quiet Ones (2010 film) on Amazon.com. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think it's a good idea to move it to The Quiet Ones (2014 film), I'm going to do it. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 05:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, use The Quiet Ones (2014 film) (WP:PDAB) Create a disambiguation page instead. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Based on a true story?

The film is being marketed as based on a true story. Really? I see some WP:FRINGE issues here. Choor monster (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can say that it was loosely based on a true story, but we'll have to find some sort of way to verify that. Shouldn't be too hard, I think. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly say that it is being marketed as based on a true story. And it would not surprise me that some crackpot did some horrible things to some girl victim for the sake of his crackpottery. Meanwhile, this article is in the category of films based on a true story. It strikes me that, given that upfront such a claim comes off as patent nonsense, we should wait for secondary sources to chime in and say that it is based on a true story. Choor monster (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've found an article that claims this, although I say "purportedly". There's a huge trend lately with horror movies where someone will say "true events" and never actually name what they're pulling on for whatever reason. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and is purported to be loosely based upon a true story

Indeed. In plain English, what does that mean? Lots of weasel words here!

It is, or it is not, based on a "true story"? Forget all this nonsense about "purported to be" and "loosely based". Even "true story" strikes me as an oxymoron.

So, it is, or it is not, based on fact? The answer is no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.40.233 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"purported" is not a weasel-word here, rather, it is the use of the passive which is weaselly here, since those making the claim are unidentified. The fact is—and facts are neutral—this film is being marketed as "based on a true story". (I will rewrite this after posting.)

What that actually means could be anything. There is nothing wrong, in my view, with a film about some real-world mystery explaining the event in supernatural terms and then claiming to be "based on a true story".

However, until the alleged underlying mystery is identified—presumably some self-proclaimed psychic researcher who did horrible experiments on some girl—we cannot do more than report that the film is being marketed as such. In particular, the "based on a true story" category is unacceptable. (I will comment it out after posting.) Choor monster (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception

On two occasions now, STATicVapor has reverted my edits[1][2] to the reception section, which currently identifies the reception to the film as "mixed", despite a 36% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It does, also, have a 41% rating on Metacritic. My attempts to more accurately describe the reaction to the film as "mixed to negative" were rejected with the edit summary argument that "there is no such thing as mixed to negative", even though that description is frequently used to describe films that are on the very low end of the mixed range (just as we use "mixed to positive" to indicate films on the high end of the mixed range) and not excluded in any way by the MOS. Similarly, STATicVapor alleges that calling the 36% rating on RT negative is both WP:Synth and WP:OR, which I find pretty ludicrous. I'm slightly concerned that the whitewashing away of any use of the word "negative" is misleading in terms of the general reaction to this film. I'm sure STATicVapor will counter with his own argument, but I'm looking for other thoughts. Is the general consensus that not using "negative" and just leaving the description at "mixed" is acceptable? Grandpallama (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this Wikiproject discussion. It is the consensus of film article editors that "mixed to ___" should not be used. Mixed includes negative (and positive), so why would it need to say mixed to negative? Negative is included in mixed. That is why we use the word generally. Calling any rating on RT positive, negative or mixed is WP:SYNTH as RT does not call their percentages positive, negative or mixed. You are just making your own assumptions on what the rating means. If you look at Metacritic, it says the reviews have been mixed or average, also stating that 5 reviews were positive, ten were mixed, while 9 were negative. How does that make it generally negative? It does not. STATic message me! 16:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the lecture in which you attempt to present a conversation as a policy. Some users in a Wikiproject discussion opining that it is synthesis does not make it a de facto decision of WP:Synth policy--it makes it their expressed opinion. As for the notion that RT doesn't call their percentages positive, negative, or mixed, you're correct--they use "rotten" and "fresh," which are generally regarded to connect to "negative" and "positive", respectively, but I'd be happy to say it received a "rotten" rating in RT. And, finally, per the comments on that very same discussion, the consensus would not be to state that it received a "negative rating," but it would be entirely appropriate to state that it received "mostly negative reviews" on RT. Are you comfortable with that compromise--stating that the critical reception was mixed, while in the RT sentence stating that it received mostly negative reviews on RT? Grandpallama (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions on Wikiproject guidelines are not just conversations and I never called it policy. Multiple editors expressing the same opinion is consensus, which is what Wikipedia is governed by. By your synthesis of RT, that would make every film under 60% having received negative reviews, which is atrociously wrong. Again saying it mostly negative reviews on RT, is your WP:NOR as the source does not say that. STATic message me! 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits on the grounds of WP:OR and WP:Synth does, in fact, mean the same thing as suggesting those policies were violated, as you are an experienced enough editor to know. And the consensus of editors in a Wikiproject conversation does not, in turn, translate to an enforceable action across WP, which you should also know by now (and which those editors themselves acknowledged in that very conversation). As far as the claim that the film received "mostly negative reviews on RT" is somehow original research, not only are you actually contradicting the very consensus discussion that you're trying to cite in support of your position (since they concluded that kind of language was entirely acceptable), but you're also choosing to ignore how RT works, since all of its reviews receive either a negative (rotten) or positive (fresh) rating. Your insistence that a review aggregator site must explicitly contain the statement "This film received mostly negative reviews" is kind of strange and counter to how we use it in WP--RT also doesn't explicitly state that the film received mixed reviews, either. This intractability on your part suggests to me that I'm right to wait and see what other editors think. Per WP:BRD, I won't reinstate the information until there are some other opinions offered. Grandpallama (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]