Talk:X-Men: The Last Stand/Arthive 3

Straw poll for Critical Response section

Allright, time for a straw poll on the critical response section Facto 04:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed. If you don't see a choice you like, add your own.

• Delete entirely
  • Facto 04:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (#1 choice)
  • Seriously no need for it. I would rather we have "review" links at the bottom with "External links". Havok (T/C/c) 13:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it needs to be deleted entirely. We are attempting to include POV about a movie, when we constantly go about the rest of the article removing POV. This seems a bit hypocritical. It shouldn't matter that a person is paid for their opinion about a movie, because nothing has qualified them to be a critic other than the fact that they can write and enjoy movies, and that isn't even always the case. I vote to remove it entirely because it does nothing more than promote hypocracy and bias, because unless there is 100% agreement about the movie you can never fully acknowledge everyone's opinion and you can never be accurate with it. Bignole 23:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree wholeheartedly with above users. This section should be deleted entirely, with links to critical reviews placed at the bottom.Smeelgova 05:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Include two reviews (1 positive/1 negative)
  • Facto 04:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (#3 choice)
• Include four reviews (2 positive/2 negative)
  • Facto 04:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC) No more than four reviews should be included (#2 choice)
  • Tombseye 07:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 4 to 5 reviews are okay.
  • --P-Chan 02:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC) At least 4 to 5 reviews should be included. (Mixed and divserse of coure).
• Include six reviews (2+ positive/2+ negative)
• Include eight+ reviews (2+ positive/2+ negative)
• Leave it alone, it's fine the way it is
  • CovenantD 05:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Not that I'm going to give this straw poll much weight anyway, after we've had an admin look in and give it a pass.
  • Tenebrae 13:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Rotten Tomatoes for the metrics; Ebert/Roeper for middlebrow populism, NY Times for urban intellectual, Variety & Hollywood Reporter for trade, a British perspective, and a reviewer who's been in comics. Not sure what LA Times represents, but what the hey.
  • Manwithbrisk 01:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC) its fine the way it is, there was a range of views, that in my opinion were pretty much dead on with the feelings regaurding the movie from peopel in my area, it was an ok movie, but did not live up to the other two, i find nothing wrong with that
  • Newt 18:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC) it's fine. I think it draws together the overall critical feel for the movie. As for this "introducing POV" needlessly into an article, the WP:FILM template actually calls for critical response and specifically states to look at Rottentomatoes.com or Metacritic for guidance.

Discussion of straw poll

Critical reception, neutrality, Facto & Tenebae

Given that our differences have for some time affected the page and fellow editors, I thought it important to post here a conciliatory message I have left for User:Facto. I'm hoping other editors will be supportive of our efforts to adhere to WikiProject Films guidelines and to overall accuracy and perspective. Thanks, all. -- Tenebrae 21:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote that since it is mixed on rotten, that we take the two best (positive) reviews and the two worst (negative) reviews and add those to the section. Then we add the "money talks" subsection and show it's record breaking weekend, but, follow that with it's dissappointed second weekend. Just a thought, because if we want the page to more forward we need to remove that disclaimer of neutrality. Bignole 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your positive and easy-to-implement suggestion. I would add that the sentence about the Rotten Tomatoes aggregate be place to the lead, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Reception, along with a sentence about it breaking a box-office record, and that the critics' sampling and the dollar specifics be placed as you suggest in the "Reception" section. -- Tenebrae 21:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to avoid using quotes per Wikipedia policy.

Reception: Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics" -from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Reception

"If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote" -from WP:WIN#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information

current straw poll totals are:

4 votes delete for delete section entirely (my first choice)

4 votes for leave as is (and the version each user voted for "leave as is" differed because they voted at different times)

1 vote for including two reviews (my second choice)

2 votes for including four reviews (my third choice)

As the straw poll indicates a lack of consensus. I suggest moving forward with the below version; to me it is succinct and matches the policy and guideline above.

The critical reception of X3 was highly mixed as evidenced with the film aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes giving the film 54%. [1] Many film critics enjoyed the movie's thrilling action sequences, special effects, and its presentation of political issues. However, many other film critics considered the third film to be of lesser quality than the previous two and stated there was a lack of emotional weight and creative direction.

Otherwise, we can follow the example in the Mission_Impossible_III article which does not use quotes and only lists the names of the organizations that gave positive and passing reviews. Right now the section is too large and needs to be cut down just like the Plot summary. --Facto 22:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral action by User:Facto

Despite my attempts at reaching out, and despite the efforts of other editors here, User:Facto has again made a unilateral change to a disputed section where the community is trying to reach consensus.

He cites WP:WIN#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information as a reason to remove the critics' quotes. Yet that policy refers to "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)" and not a summary roundupo of critics' views as noted by P-Chan above.

Until consensus can be reached, I've returned the disputed section to its pre-unilateral change. -- Tenebrae 20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Avoidance

The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond in kind, and do not make personal attacks.

Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing. For some guidelines, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. I made edits to the main article according to my suggestions listed in the talk page [2] to which no one objected. Reverting to the previous version that is under objection instead of submitting a new version for review and approval is assuming bad faith. --Facto 20:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Facto, I just took a look at the changes you made to the article, and I can't help but disagree. You said you based the changes you made on the Mission Impossible III article. My question is, why would you use a poorly written article as a benchmark for this article? Wouldn't it make more sense to use Feature Article examples instead? Mission impossible hasn't been peer reviewed and it is not a GA or an FA. Also, the way you copied the format is inappropriate. If the Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic rate it at just over 50/50, then why would list 4 favorable reviews, 1 mixed review, and 0 negative reviews? It doesn't match, and makes the section look very biased towards the film. Before you continue, it would be most appreciated if you could explain your motives, in just a few sentences, so others can undertand them. (I know you said it before, but the conversation is in many many pieces across wikipedia). Why do you want to delete the critical reviews?--P-Chan 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There were no Generally Unfavorable Reviews listed on that Metacritic page. I picked those reviews because those are the ones that had been quoted from before. Otherwise we can select from Salon.com, Empire, The Onion, San Francisco Chronicle, Miami Herald, Rolling Stone, The New York Times, Chicago Reader, Austin Chronicle, Washington Post, Slate, LA Weekly, Film Threat, and The New Yorker. All these are mixed or average reviews, but I think the 5 reviews included may be from the most noteworthy film critics. USA Today is the most widely circulated newspaper. Chicago Sun Times is from most famous film critic Roger Ebert. New York Times is said to be the newspaper of record. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are the two major trade publications of the film industry. Also, I would like to know why you think the Mission Impossible III article is poorly written. I used it because it is about a recent film that was released only 1 month before X-Men 3. I deleted all the reviews because it looked like that section of article was a mirror of Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic; we don't need six reviews that say the same thing. And not all films in FA included criticism. See Ran_(film)#Reception. --Facto 23:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So you were using the articles because they were quoted before... did you read actually read them? Most of the ones you listed under the favorable review category were actually negative.... or at best mixed (Variety, and Hollywood Reporter). You also left out the Time Magazine review which was also negative. And yes, while Metacritic had no truely negative reviews, take a look at Rotten Tomatoes and you will find many negative reviews there, with ratings like 2/5, 1.5/5, etc. Like I said before, the way it's set up now... looks biased.

In regards to why I was picking on MI-III was because it hasn't been reviewed, GA'ed or FA'ed, and thus, it hasn't gone through any of the quality controls that wikipedia provides. V for Vendetta (film), is a more recent film and has gone through peer review, FA, and GA, so it would be a better benchmark for current films.

In regards to why Ran doesn't have criticism in the article, is because it was a really good film. It scored 90+ on both Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic, so putting negative reviews would do no justice.

Anyways, hopefully I addressed all of your concerns... so let's get to the core. Just because you don't agree with the reviews, doesn't mean you should delete the entire thing! You said the reviews sound too much alike? Then replace them with reviews that represent different aspects of the film! Move towards a more workable NPOV solution. --P-Chan 00:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Made changes that keep everyone's comments in mind. What changes does the reception section need now?--P-Chan 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, P-Chan, for your continued efforts on what's been a frustrating, ongoing disruption. My only suggestion is that it's important to include the one national-magazine critic who's also been a comic-book writer. That's a uniquely knowledgeable perspective. (And I as I recall, it was balanced-to-good: highly positive on the script, middling on the direction.) -- Tenebrae 13:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem dude, it's all good. In regards to the magazine-comic book guy, I couldn't find him from the old list. If the person is notable and his/her opinion is different than the ones already here, then by all means, we'll put that person in. But in any case, let's put this all behind us now, and focus on making this a killer article! Cheers.--P-Chan 15:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement. Right now, there's only one editor with any objection to this critic, and his only criterion is that he feels that it's "insulting". I ask other editors to read the Film Journal/Frank Lovece quote and weigh in. -- Tenebrae 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor who felt the quote was biased and insulting. Bignole agreed with me on removing the quote. Stop inserting objectainable quotes from critics most people have never even heard of. Film Journal International doesn't even have an article here at Wikipedia and I've never even heard of Frank Lovece. Their insulting comments don't deserve to be in the article. Facto 01:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Frank Lovece has a wiki article; whether you've heard of him or not is irrelevant. He's the only mainstream film critic who has also been a comics writer — is that really not notable in the context of a comic-book movie?

You keep using the word "insulting", as if the critic had a personal motive. That's a very strange accustation to make about a professional with, as far as I know, no more personal connection to Brett Ratner as any other professional critic.

I think it would be useful to the discussion to know why you continue to use such an oddly personal reason to not include this otherwise uniquely positioned critic. The thing that's most problemmatic is that this critic lauds the writing — so the only reason to call it "insulting" is the reference to Brett Ratner's direction.

On a separate note, I believe you to be guility of the bad faith of which you accuse me. I put a hand out to work with you and compromise, and you ignored it, even when another editor asked you to take a look at my entreaty. -- Tenebrae 01:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't bore me with your lackluster comments Tenebrae. --Facto 02:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate: I made a good-faith attempt at conciliation. Your response? "Don't bore me with your lackluster comments Tenebrae." -- Tenebrae 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you only reverted to the disputed version, a clear sign of bad faith.

--Facto 06:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Facto#Re:_Mediation -- Tenebrae 06:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you really wanted a compromise solution, then you should have never used that quote from Lovece again. --Facto 07:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I ask in all seriousness and calmness what your objection to that quote is. It's evenhanded in that it speaks positively of one aspect on the film, and negatively about another. You've used the word "insulting", which has a personal component. Do you honestly believe that this critic -- who is the only mainstream critic to also have firsthand experience writing comics as well -- has a personal vendetta against the director? -- Tenebrae 07:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

All this may be moot. I think we have somehow, inadvertently even, reached a compromise solution! Facto inserted a Charlotte Observer quote negative of the script and positive of the direction. The existing Film Journal quote was positive of the script and negative of the direction. I don't believe we can get more balanced than that! So are we good? Remember: In a compromise, each side gives a little to get a little. -- Tenebrae 07:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to have a personal vendetta against someone to insult them. Anyway, the new version may work as a compromise. But I'll have to remove that bit about "the sole mainstream-press critic who also has been a comic-book writer" because there are no such details for Justin Chang, Ebert & Roeper, or Lawrence Toppman. --Facto 17:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to go with your edit; given this is a comics movie, I believe the descriptor if relevant, but that's the nature of compromise. I thank you with great respect for working at this and negotiating this to reach detente. I'm sure the other editors are glad to see this, and I want you to know how much I appreciate your genuine effort here. -- Tenebrae 17:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and happy editing. --Facto 04:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)