Film: American C‑class

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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Pritzker Military Library C‑class Low‑importance

This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Regarding this, it is unnecessary to put this passage at the very front of the "Critical response" section. It can come later if needed, but its placement at the beginning comes off as a problematic implication. In addition, WP:BRD should be recognized to have a discussion if content is reverted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a synth violation to try and include with the reviews. The source is about revenue. It would be okay to use that source to show how much money AS made over the other oscar nominees and the difference in reviews. Per BRD , you Rich Janis shouldn't have restored it. --DHeyward (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the editor to address here. Rich Janis is. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erik did not restore the content, but I agree with the position it does not belong in the article. The fundamental point of the critical reception section is that the critical response was generally positive so that should be foremost. The comments have no place in the article at all unless they are presented in context i.e. the critic wasn't making a point about how well or poorly the film reviewed, she was addressing how poorly the other nominees performed at the box office in comparison. Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to User:Erik for responding to my request for a discussion about this, and for linking to the BRD page. Erik, I do believe that this belongs in the beginning of the "Critical response" section, for 3 reasons: that paragraph introduces a significant part of the article; the quote provides an explanatory perspective on how low the stated Rotten Tomatoes score is for such a nominee; and it also gives balance in the form of the only clearly negative fact in a paragraph that otherwise strikes me as simply positive in tone despite some of the strongly negative reviews. However, I agree that it shouldn't be the first words and I'll change that. Please note, though, that I did not violate BRD; I fulfilled its intentions--first, with an edit that honors all 3 of WP's Core content policies, including--especially--a perspective that was missing, and second, by requesting a discussion before another revert of my edit. So, I ask you to reconsider your opinion.

User:Betty Logan, thank you, too, for your thoughtful comment. Please consider the following. Although the "Critical response" section includes varying opinions, the extent of reviewers' deviation from what is typical for such a highly-lauded film deserves mention; the author of that quote thought so, and I concur. Reviewers' opinions are all relative to many things, including other movies, which they often cite within their reviews. Although most cited reviews were written before Oscar nominations, at least two (Wight's, and Masciotra's) specifically make a comparison based on these nominations, and other reviews continue to focus on Oscar nominees while the public does the same. Even in the pre-nomination reviews quoted in this section, we get Weitzman's expectation of what "The best movies" should have. Without the quote that I added, I get only a positive impression from that first paragraph, despite the many conflicting opinions and even strongly negative reviews within that section and the Controversies section (which is also all about "Critical response"). And, please don't fall for DHeyward's false "synth" claim; the statement that I quoted stands on its own--it is a simple objective statement that's independent of how its author used it to make her other points--and it is directly applicable to the existing statement about the movie's Rotten Tomatoes score; there is no WP:OR on my part. Here's an indication of the relevance of the author's quote: Compared to this movie's 73%, the average of the Rotten Tomatoes scores of the other 7 Best Picture nominees is 92%; 6 of the 8 scores range from 89% to 98% and the remaining one is 79%.

User:DHeyward, thank you for joining the discussion, and please let it proceed before you jump into yet another revert. Your hasty actions are counter-productive, while falling short of basic WP editing guidelines. As for your saying that I shouldn't have restored my edit? "Per BRD" as you say, you shouldn't have reverted my edit in the first place, and certainly not as you did, with "Just no" as your edit summary and without any discussion in Talk. Even in your second revert, you ignore the BRD advice to use links to support the edit summary; in this case if you had provided a link to WP:SYNTH, I and perhaps others wouldn't have had to search for it. Again, as explained in my reply to Betty Logan, your claim of a SYNTH violation is false. Your "weasel word" claim is also false: there is nothing equivocal about "the worst-reviewed Oscar contender".

--Rich Janis (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't win the best picture award so it seems to be a pretty minor detail at this point.--MONGO 06:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MONGO. I don't get what made it so urgent as to cause a rv--especially such a brusque one--in the first place. Regarding the article content, I'm mostly just seeking more reasoned opinions now. The nature of the reverts and their absent, false--or, at best, misguided--objections is not minor, especially coming from so experienced an editor with elevated rights. --Rich Janis (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and Dheyward do not have elevated rights. While I have no doubt your addition was done in good faith, it is a minor quibble of sorts. A movie that was nominated but did not receive best picture also was the worst reviewed, by "rotten tomatoes".--MONGO 13:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, I'm sorry you feel the revert was brusque. BRD works by your bold edit, followed by a revert and then discussion by you about why you think your addition belongs. Your source was about why American Sniper made so much money at the box office while the other films did not. You attempted to use pieces of that article and synthesize it with other sources to make a point that none of the sources made. It's a very clear WP:SYNTH issue. After reading it, you can probably come up with a non-synth edit that could be discussed. --DHeyward (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, DHeyward, I think I've addressed the SYNTH issue by removing the word "despite" and re-locating my edit. Here's the raw text that I'm planning to add, shown in bold between the current 2nd and 3rd sentences of the paragraph:

Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a "Certified Fresh" rating of 73%, based on 217 reviews from critics, with an average rating of 6.9/10. This makes itBy that measure, it is "the worst-reviewed" of the 2014 Oscar contenders. The site's consensus states, .... Thanks, --Rich Janis (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC) --Rich Janis (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the context of how the review is portrayed. If you wish to use that source for "the worst-reviewed" of the 2014 Oscar contenders, then it must be juxtaposed against it's much larger box office success. that is what the source is relaying. The title of the source "Why American Sniper Was the Only Oscar Movie That Made Big Money" is the dead giveaway. The article is explaining why AS made much more than all the other nominees, not why it was the lowest "rotten tomato" score of the other 3 candidates. In fact it is trying to explain why the other nominees all grossed less than $100 million when previous years nominees had no such issue. It also scored lower that "catching Fire" on rotten tomatoes but that movie wasn't up for best pic. It's going to be very difficult to justify correlation between rotten tomato score and oscar nomination. They are unrelated. --DHeyward (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with DHeyward on this matter. The context is more that while the critics may have scored the other Oscar nominees higher, the viewers seem to flocked to this movie regardless.--MONGO 21:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as it took me awhile to understand it was OR to retain the original author's "despite" phrasing (which was how she linked the ratings to her main subject) in the different context here, I now wonder why my revised use of the quoted fact can't be used, since it presents the fact independently of the way the author chose to use it. Or, perhaps you'd accept it this way--I could simply insert the same fact, without quoting that source, as follows: By that measure, it is the worst-reviewed of its co-nominees for the Best-Picture Oscar. I would then simply cite RT as the source. Thank you both for your opinions, --Rich Janis (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's still WP:SYNTH to try and make "worst-reviewed of its co-nominees for the Best-Picture Oscar" a metric worth noting. That's not the point the source makes. If the story was about how such a low rated film made it to Oscar nomination, that's one thing but the source is about the very large box office receipts of AS vs. the other Oscar Nominations, not its relative Rotten Tomatoes score. We could just as easily say "Despite being the most successful film...." or "Despite making more than all the other Oscar contenders combined...." The source juxtaposes box office receipts with reviews. There is no correlation between reviews and who wins: at least not in the source provided. Did the highest rated movie win? If so, it's not in the source you are using to paint the significance of Oscar contender reviews. For example, at metacritic, Birdman (the actual winner) was 15th in their list for 2014 (Boyhood was #1). No source is making a case that the relative review is significant to the award. The source you use is discussing the Box Office receipts. You can't cherry-pick a stat from that source out of it's context and make it appear to be a notable fact. It's synth. --DHeyward (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In your last comment, DHeyward, all of your mentions of my source are non-responsive to the source that I used in my previous comment. I'm inserting no SYNTH, no OR, not even an opinion; just an appropriately sourced objective fact. Also, WP:NOTE is irrelevant here; please stop making inappropriate comments. --Rich Janis (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple: it is a SYNTH to make "worst-reviewed of its co-nominees for the Best-Picture Oscar" an Oscar metric worth noting. The source you gave doesn't do that. Without that connection, we can't add it. The source juxtaposes success at the box office with Rotten Tomatoes score but your article addition omits success at the box office and changes the entire interpretation of the source. We don't get to decide that it's a negative or present it that way if the source doesn't. It's SYNTH. --DHeyward (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, what's most simple now is the obviousness of your refusal to comment on my change of source for my edit. By continuing to talk about a source that I stopped using--twice, now, even after I pointed out your error--you are refusing to engage in a meaningful discussion of my current edit suggestion, and simply insisting on repeating your now-obsolete comments. Please stop repeating irrelevancies. --Rich Janis (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just as you have previously suggested how my original sourced quotation might be used in a different context, please suggest a wording that you might consider an improved way of stating the relationship between this movie's Tomatometer score and those of its co-nominees, based on the Rotten Tomatoes source link that I provided in my Talk comment of 08:22, 28 February 2015. Thanks, --Rich Janis (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said (and it goes for all sources): What source is stating that the RT number is relevant to the Oscars? It's not Rotten Tomatoes. They never say "worst reviewed" either. If you are going to SYNTH and OR a statement about the Oscars, why not use Box Office receipts? Or profit? Or number of opening theater screens? - all are equally valid statements that lack appropriate secondary sources. The RT source can't be used to make a "worst reviewed" claim as they never make the claim nor tie it as relevant to the Oscars (the highest rated film, "Boyhood," didn't win either so who is making the claim that Rotten Tomato ratings are significant to Oscar nominations and wins? You didn't provide that source which is why it's OR and SYNTH). Revenue, profit, screens, etc are also just as SYNTH and OR which is why we also don't say "the film was denied a Best-picture Oscar despite outperforming all the other nominees combined." I already explained how to incorporate your first source. RT is more of a primary source which is much more difficult to use as a source and really needs a secondary to explain the rating numbers and what they mean. --DHeyward (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DHeyward, sorry about the delay, but my schedule this month is proving too busy for this leisure activity; I'll check back in April. Just off the top of my head, though, some of the areas that I disagree with in your recent comments include: your objection to a statement about the RT number related to other Oscar nominees (I already gave you a link to the RT page that groups those movies together and shows their scores. Also, while I don't need to rely on it, the connection is already implied in the article, starting in the lede, with "The film received mostly positive reviews from critics. At the 87th Academy Awards, American Sniper received six nominations, including Best Picture...." This is not a spurious connection; it's an integral part of the movie business; and a movie's sales, reviews, and accolades such as the Academy's are all linked in its contemporary and historical perspectives; and your objection is also inappropriate for suppressing this relevant perspective. Furthermore, my edit uses the exact same logic as the article's phrase describing this movie as "[eighth] highest-grossing Best Picture nominee film".); your refusal to suggest a way to make this edit feasible (I've suggested revised wordings, and here's another: "lowest-reviewed" instead of "worst-reviewed". It's long past the time for you to offer something constructive.); your apparent objection to including this fact regardless of what reason you have to come up with (there is nothing wrong with adding this properly sourced fact about a professionally established grouping of films); your claim that this straightforward, descriptive fact can't be used based on its primary source (You are mistaken in your reading of the WP:PRIMARY policy). By the way, my recent silence about my original source doesn't mean that I accept your ongoing objections to it. As I've said before, by moving the quote and removing the word "despite" from what I quoted, I reduced the quote to a simple, objectively verifiable fact that is wholly independent of the implication that author Dockterman made between reviews and sales, and this also removed any implication in my edit of any relationship between reviews and Oscar standing. This is not "cherry-picking" in the derogatory sense that you claimed; Dockterman's choice to imply that reviews are perceived to generate sales doesn't impose on me the need to discuss sales, because I'm not quoting anything that depends on her implication. Although I've offered here to replace her value-laden word "worst", I still maintain that it is usable when cited as her opinion; not only that, but as a published movie reviewer, if she chooses to point out the movie's comparative standing among its co-nominees in terms of critic's reviews, that represents a legitimate POV regarding critical response. Also, while I've asked you repeatedly to stop making inappropriate comments--and you do sometimes seem to be making serious attempts at discussing these issues--it was yet another example of inappropriateness for you--in your comments of 08:50, 3 March 2015--to throw the word "despite" back into the discussion, thus distorting and impeding our discussion. Similarly, please stop the SYNTH mantra; remember: straightforward, descriptive, trivially verifiable statements of facts are not interpretations needing a secondary source, and likewise they are WP:NOTOR. Anyway, this has already taken much longer than I'd planned--I guess that shows how far apart we are in this discussion--and my time's up for the next few weeks. Thanks, --Rich Janis (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, see you in April. I'm not sure I understood your explanations nut I still don't see how you link a rotten tomatoes score to Oscar nominations. No source appears to have done that. It is not a trivial statement to link the films Rotten Tomatoes score to its Oscar status without a source that does it. Neither the film with the highest RT score or the lowest RT score won best picture so it will take a reliable source to make the connection. --DHeyward (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is really weird but i feel that some editors has some itch about mockingjay being overtaken by American sniper MONGO has deleted the section =(making it the the second-highest-grossing film of 2014 in the U.S^[1].)for no apparent reason unless they want to cover up the fact that American Sniper will take the domestic boxoffice crown it really beginning to stink of bias in favor of mockingjay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source lists proceeds in the last 365 day period, not for the calendar year of 2014.--MONGO 07:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

haha your talking in riddles or your just finding excuses to cover up the fact that domestically American sniper will pass your precious mockinjay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i see your only a kid i hate arguing with a child but i hate it more if the wrong fact is stated as correct, no bias and the true facts should prevail even if it stings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I am a "kid"?--MONGO 07:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kids today don't even know who MONGO is. --DHeyward (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hey MONGO i dont really care you can do what you want im just feeling fulfilled right now just got the news of Saturday update for American sniper it will be at 337 million officially passing mockingjay no sense in arguing with you ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For more information, see Talk:American Sniper (film)/Archive 5#Criticism section dispute.

• Jennifer Matsui criticized the film.^[3]

No, she didn't. --DHeyward (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pete Dolack criticized the film.^[4]

So? Dolack is a non-notable person with a non-notable opinion and with an opinion that has already been expressed in the article by highly quality sources.--MaverickLittle (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~ ~ ~

The LA Weekly is a longstanding reliable source, and no good cause has been stated for the removal of its film critic's judgment of the film. Please discuss the proposed removal here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what exactly are the complaints about the source?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already hashed out. False accounts of untrue events See archive. --DHeyward (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, it's not "already hashed out." A search of this article's talk page archive discovers zero discussion of this source. The source has been stably in the article for months. Please engage in a discussion rather than a stale revert war. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It cites the same myths as other sources do that did not gain consensus for inclusion. What's wrong with the current critique already in place?--MONGO 23:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The same myths" being what, exactly? "What's wrong with the current critique already in place" indeed, because the LA Weekly article has been in place for months. You're the one proposing removal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh....the article states a lie that Kyle "claimed that he had been hired by Blackwater to snipe armed looters at the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina". As discussed endlessly as can be seen in archive 5, Kyle never made this claim. He claimed that others were shooting people from atop the Superdome. While Kyle's claim of others has never been substantiated, the press has twisted it all around, and the shoddy journalistic integrity of the source you keep edit warring to keep in, uses misinformation from other sources to perpetuate and expand on things to discredit Kyle. Did you wikistalk DHeyward here? It appears you did.--MONGO 23:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]