Talk:Adult Adoption (film)

Socking
Ongoing long term socking on this article. Valereee (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I posted this in reply to your comment on my user page so I apologise for the repetition - but it might be useful for other editors to see it:
 * First - I am not Ellie Moon. The reviews of the film were remarkably positive - yet you picked the most negative comments in the only two reviews that had negative comments. If you want to include negative comments - why not also the positive comments in the same reviews? On the question of citations - Hollywood News is a serious review source - which Rotten Tomatoes uses - and as you may know RT only uses reliable review sources. As I recall you discounted certain sources such as TalonBooks which published Ellie Moon's first two plays. It is one of the two most important publishers of plays in Canada - and if you do a search for TalonBooks on wikipedia you will see that it is cited hundreds of times. I could go on .. Can you understand why some people are wondering if you have an agenda here? I am willing to accept that you do not - but based on what appears on other pages - particularly of other Canadian writers an artists - there are appears to be a double standard operating. AMCream (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC) AMCream (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine, you're just a rabid fan who creates a new account every time the current one gets blocked to make sure the articles about her and her work are uniformly positive. Sorry, that's still a WP:Conflict of Interest which means we can't really rely on you to be objective about assessing stuff like reviews, which are inherently subjective. I am telling you that you are not doing her any favors by socking at the pages about her and her work. People assume someone willing to sock is also willing to do other bad things, including making an article with which they have a COI inaccurate. Which draws scrutiny to the articles in question.
 * Not sure what other Canadian writers and artists you're talking about, but if you'd like to tell me, I'm always happy to take a look.
 * Here is what WP policy says: about the reliability of Rotten Tomatoes (my emphasis): Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable. There is consensus that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for biographical information, as it is user-generated content along with a lack of oversight. So, no, we do not believe a review included at RT is necessarily reliable. It's aggregating from THN, but when we assess THN, we look for other evidence, such as a masthead showing editorial oversight, which THN doesn't seem to have. Which means to us it looks like anyone can post an opinion there and there's no reason to believe anyone is checking their work.
 * WP shouldn't be sourcing to TalonBooks for anything about one of their books or one of their authors except for biographical facts. Surely you can understand that your publisher saying about your book that it's great or about you that you're a fabulous writer isn't any more reliable than what your mom says about you. Those things belong on your website and social media, etc. Valereee (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have only created one account ever. I made only one editorial change - adding positive comments from the reviews you cited on the page.(I have also made minor editorial changes on other unrelated pages in other areas of interest). Other people may have weighed in on these pages but they are not me.It was a mistake, I guess, for me to have replaced the negative comments with the positive ones and not simply added them. I am glad that after initially deleting the reference to Rotten Tomatoes you were willing not to exclude it when I added it again. As I recall TalonBooks was referenced simply to establish the existence of the book, which does seem like a relevant fact. Published plays though are rarely reviewed. The relevant reviews are of the play's production. The Canadian Theatre Review is a serious academic publication - edited by academics and published by the University of Toronto Press. The Wee Review has a small fixed staff of reviewers and is a major arts publication in Scotland. I have asked Hollywood News how they operate, since there seem to be only two active reviewers working there - Kat Hughes being the more active of the two. I suppose there are two general concerns here - first the exclusion of references that are serious and credible - many used simply to establish an occurrence and not the quality of the work or performance - the reviews do that - second I understand that balance is important and so along with the positive must go the negative but there seems to be a focus on the negative in what you have included on the page. If the reviews of a film are very very positive which they were in the case of Adult Adoption, it does not seem balanced to emphasize the negative or even to have equal parts negative and positive. I am trying to engage in a reasonable and respectful way, and hope that the automatic response to this is not simply to block me. AMCream (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The response to engaging in a reasonable and respectful way would never be to block. At this point any block would be for either creating multiple accounts or for recruiting others to create accounts.
 * There's a lot of policy around this. If you get blocked for it, it won't be by me, and I'm happy to discuss at your user talk in the discussion I opened there. Valereee (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like I can't converse on my user page which appears to be either blocked or closed. All I can do is assure you that I have never had any account but this one and I have never asked anyone to create an account. I have done very little editing - a single intervention - on this page (as well as some minor edits elsewhere on topics very different from this one). Mostly I have tried to engage here on the talk section to raise questions about editorial judgments. But I suppose if you think that this user name is one of many I employ then I can understand that would see this differently. All I can do again is to tell you that I am one person - with one account - who has only once sought to edit this page. AMCream (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @AMCream, there's no block at User_talk:AMCream. No one has edited that page except you and me, and you wouldn't be able to post here if you were blocked. Valereee (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * hi Valeree -- and other experienced wiki editors, I hope you will take note. I believe Valaree may have a conflict of interest with this page. For months, they have stalked this page, blocking any changes, including removing sources like The Globe & Mail's "Best Films of 2023" list, which includes this film. (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/reviews/article-what-to-watch-best-movies-films-2023/). Valaree seems determined to mine reviews that were deemed 100% on Rotten Tomatoes and are overwhelmingly positive, for the only criticisms and centre them, and remove any positive quotes. This film received overwhelmingly positive reviews and anyone who points this out and seeks to have the reception section reflect this is accused of being a sock-puppet. 2607:FEA8:8420:F300:1979:2FB7:8771:AC5A (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * responded below. Valereee (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Valaree
hi Valeree -- and other experienced wiki editors, I hope you will take note. I believe Valaree may have a conflict of interest with this page. For months, they have stalked this page, blocking good faith changes, including removing sources like The Globe & Mail's "Best Films of 2023" list, which includes this film. (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/reviews/article-what-to-watch-best-movies-films-2023/). Valaree seems determined to mine reviews that were deemed 100% on Rotten Tomatoes and are overwhelmingly positive, for the only criticisms and centre them, and remove any positive quotes. This film received overwhelmingly positive reviews and anyone who seeks to have the reception section reflect this is accused of being a sock-puppet. I’m not sure what’s going on here. 2607:FEA8:8420:F300:6985:642E:A98D:1560 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, IP. I have no conflict of interest. Watched the film and loved it, and I very regularly work to create articles about women and their work. I am not in the industry and am in Cincinnati, have never met anyone involved. We can totally include positive reviews. We just need to include those that aren't wholly positive, too. Ping and, who have commented before at Ellie Moon. Valereee (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Valereee, don't waste your time. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

COI tag (May 2024)
ongoing as of 5/5/2024 Valereee (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Bearcat tagging you here because there seems to be an ongoing issue of Valaree removing sources like the Globe & Mail Best films of 2023, and mining reviews deemed 100% on RT (are overwhelmingly positive) for the only negative comments. Anyone who tries adding any positive comments or attempts to balance the quotes so they reflect the actual sources they are from is accused of socking. 209.171.85.1 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is ongoing socking from an apparent COI editor. I was actually just considering asking for a semi, wasn't sure it was really enough but it's just so persistent. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 209, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Our job here is not to only quote the positive stuff that reviewers say about a film, it's to provide a balanced perspective: if a reviewer says that some aspects of the film are not fully realized as well as they could have been, then our job is to reflect that and not to just cherrypick the positive aspects of their review to the exclusion of the more mixed or negative ones. If some reviewers disliked the film outright, then we don't bury them so that the article is only quoting positive reviews. And on and so forth: it is this article's job to provide a balanced perspective, encompassing both the positive and the less-than-positive critical response, and not to provide the unvaryingly boosterist "rave reviews only" perspective that you'd get from the studio's marketing department. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. But if you look at the actual sources, it’s more like the only caveats or criticisms have been cherry picked. Should the excerpts not reflect the overall tone of the review? So if it’s a glowing review with a few caveats and most of the quotes selected the are caveats, is that accurate? 209.171.85.1 (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm seeing, the reception section looks quite well-balanced to me, and the only thing I'm seeing in the edit history is attempts to completely wipe out any mixed or negative commentary so that it's only quoting the positive things any given reviewer said. Can you please point out which specific review quotes you consider to be "not reflective of the overall tone of the review"? Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is my first time editing this page (today). I left actually several negative comments in the edit I made, but thinned them out, to reflect the review being so positive (100% on RT). 209.171.85.1 (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything whatsoever about who was or wasn't doing the removal, I commented only on the nature of what was getting removed. Could you please not take it as a personal accusation, and just provide specific examples of what review quotes in the reception section you're specifically taking issue with? Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * All good, I didn’t take it as one and was just providing the info. I don’t take issue with any specific quotes, just aware that this reception section is filled with more caveats and criticisms than the reception sections for Canadian films that actually received mixed or negative reviews, and found that kind of odd. There are also lots of sources that kept getting removed where reviews had no caveats, like the Globe list, which now appears to be back. Just didn’t make sense to me, but all good. 2607:FEA8:8421:EE00:C988:71BD:263F:8C24 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)