Talk:My Bebe Love: KiligPaMore

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

Box office source[edit]

Where do these IPs (also James072482 and 2601:407:C200:292D:CC49:1276:8B75:92CF get the sources for the supposedly updated box office figures? I would like to assume good faith that they might got confused with the MMFF total box office figures for the box office of the film itself.

However, I don't want to assume bad faith but this may have something to do with a controversy in Philippine media on which MMFF 2016 movie was really the highest grosser between My Bebe Love and Beauty and the Bestie (box office 500M as of Jan 17). What shall be done to tackle with this issue? Request for the page's protection again or temporarily remove the "box office" parameter for both this film and Beauty and the Bestie until both movies aren't shown in mainstream Philippine cinemas anymore? Also requesting Jojit fb, a major contributor of this page, for comments.

The supposedly updated figures so far is 622 and 900 M. I have sources debunking the claim that My Bebe Love had a box office amounting to those figures. I am more inclined to believe that the editors got confused with facts from these possible reference materials:

The source said: According to a post in the MMFF official Facebook page, the film festival's eight entries have earned P622 million from December 25 to December 30 in the box office collectively. It says the 622 M figure is for all 8 entrants.

Says: The Metro Manila Film Festival has crossed the P900 million in the box office after 10 days.

On Monday night, the film festival announced that it has earned P915 million gross earning from December 25 to January 3 for its eight entries. The same

--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more inclined in protecting the articles until after the said films stop showing in cinemas worldwide. I don't think that removing the box office figures will prevent others to modify it without source. Besides, you can't remove a content that is sourced just like for the case of My Bebe Love, which grossed Php 322 million according to PEP. As for me, I am constantly watching this page for users or IPs that keep on editing the articles without reliable source. If there is no reliable source, it should be reverted. --Jojit (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Page protected as per my request. , Jojit fb you might also watch List of Filipino films of 2015 where the box office figures for My Bebe Love is also being changed without updating the source.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response section is not neutral[edit]

(NB: @Hollyckuhno:) I added a tag of neutrality under "Critical response" section to avoid edit war. Stating that the film "received mostly negative reviews" is not neutral considering that there are no sources saying indeed that the film received mostly negative reviews. Furthermore, it doesn't follow that given that we have two out of three sources stating negative reviews, it received mostly negative reviews. There could be other sources that we didn't include that might state either negative or positive reviews. Thus, saying that film received mostly negative reviews is hasty generalization and an original research. So, the statement must be changed to "received mixed reviews" because stating that will make the article not only neutral but also true. --Jojit (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In film industry, mixed reviews means that the film has received both positive and negative reviews. It doesn't have anything to do with the article being neutral or not. This sub-article is about critical reviews and we should weight whether the film has received negative, mixed, positive, or universal acclaim. In fact, stating that this film has received mixed reviews is bias and you should provide a reference to that claim if you really believe that this film has really received mixed reviews from film critics.
As requested I have provided some of the reviews I have found:
These are just some of the examples... Google it yourself if you want to be enlightened. Don't be biased just because you're an ALDUB fan. I have reviewed your contribution history and you are obviously biased from the very beginning. - Hollyckuhno (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you really reviewed all my contributions? Did you know that I reverted an edit that removes the Criticism section of the AlDub aricle? Going back to the issue, the sources that you provided aren't reliable sources except for Rappler, which is already included in the article. Even if those are reliable sources, still none of those sources say that My Bebe Love received mostly negative reviews. I already googled that even before you said it but can't find any sources (reliable or not) that say My Bebe Love received mostly negative reviews. You also believe that stating "mixed reviews" is also bias if there are also no sources. Personally, I think that "mixed reviews" is true and unbiased given that there are both positive and negative reviews, hence, mixed. Despite that, I propose to remove any statement saying that My Bebe Love received mostly negative or mixed reviews or any conclusion that aren't sourced. --Jojit (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The links that I have provided are reviews of the film My Bebe Love. As all reviews are, these are merely the opinions of the writers about the film or to put it simply, the analysis and evaluation of a film. Reliable? A film review is not just a checklist of facts about a film, it's largely an opinion for a film (production values, execution, story, cinematography, etc...). Since you want reliable sources like Rappler (maybe because you think that a writer from Rappler is a better critic than others), then I dare you to get all the reliable film review of My Bebe Love that you could get and let's weight whether it really received mixed reviews. You have said before that "there could be other sources that we didn't include that might state either negative or positive reviews" and I agree to you in that. Now, I dare you to find as many reviews you can if you really want to prove your claim. One more thing, I have read the review of PEP for My Bebe Love and it's the funniest review I have ever read. The critic can not make up his/her mind whether the film is good or not. The film review goes on as to say that "it matters not that the plot is predictable; the 'coincidences' contrived, various commercials visible" and in conclusion it says "watch My Bebe Love to entertain yourself, no more, no less." Is that what you mean by reliable? My God you're pathetic. Hollyckuhno (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will no longer comment on this issue since I already said what I have to say. I leave the resolution of the issue to the consensus of the editing community. :-) --Jojit (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding due to a request at WP:3O. MOS:Film#Critical response notes that "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources." My reading of that is that the sentence summarizing the critical response should be removed unless a reliable source can be provided that specifically states what the overall response was. If sources disagree on that reponse, let them speak for themselves rather than including a summary statement. To do otherwise would be synthesis. If you disagree with my reading of this and a consensus cannot otherwise be reached here, you are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to second and expand upon what my colleague in dispute resolution DonIago has said. Just to make clear, saying either that the reviews are mostly negative or are mixed is inappropriate unless there is a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia which actually says that. While either of those statements might never have been challenged and might have remained in the article indefinitely, now that they have been challenged (as evidenced by your disagreement, above) then Wikipedia policy says (in the BURDEN section of the Verifiability Poliy) that neither of them should be added back in once removed unless a reliable source can be provided to support it. Don is absolutely correct that to count or evaluate individual reviews and then come up with a summary or evaluation of them is prohibited original research (of which synthesis is a particular type). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on My Bebe Love: KiligPaMore. 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) 17:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:My_Bebe_Love:_KiligPaMore&oldid=1204149470"