Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her/Archive 1

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

America: Imagine the World Without Her → America (2014 film) – "Imagine the World Without Her" is a tagline, not a subtitle --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)  Krychek (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The official title this film is "America." Period. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "America" is too broad and doesn't tell what it is. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "America (2014 film)" is abundantly descriptive, as WP article titles go. "America" is the official title of the film. If that's not colorful enough for you, there's not much WP can do about it. This is not an editorial decision we are making; it is a simple fact. Krychek (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Should go by naming standards.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

See also section removal
Each of these people (below) are mentioned, are in, or have spoken in the film. Even so, per WP:SEEALSO, there is no requirement that they be "directly related" to a topic. (I had placed an inuse notice on the article while editing short descriptions to go along with short descriptions for these items, but even the inuse notice was reverted.) Editors who wish to remove these items should look at the Manual of Style. Just so they don't have to click the link, here is what it says: "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."

==See also==


 * Jagdish Bhagwati
 * Bono
 * Ted Cruz
 * Michael Eric Dyson
 * Ibn Khaldun
 * Stanley Kurtz
 * Ronald Radosh
 * Howard Zinn
 * – S. Rich (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Nothing excuses a re-revert without discussion and consensus on talk. Period.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please explain the removal of the names AND the editors comment which said why they were listed. Explain why the MOS, which allows for "tangentially related topics", does not apply. – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can't just say discuss on talk and then not discuss. Arzel (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but the second revert by Srich was inappropriate, especially as he was elsewhere referring to this being a contentious editing environment. SPECIFICO  talk  16:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Page probably needs admin intervention or be watched on probation
The film America: Imagine the World Without Her because it's a conservative political documentary is naturally attracting all sorts of POV edits complete with POV edit warring. FYI during the last 30 days I have seen this movie at the theater along with Captain America: The Winter Soldier (again), X-Men: Days of Future Past (again), Maleficent, Edge of Tomorrow, Chef and 22 Jump Street. Unlike the POV editors I do actually attend the theater on a frequent basis. Calling CinemaScore irrelevant, is purely an ignorant POV edit. Personally I always use CinemaScore before spending $10.00+ to watch a movie, it's that important and the only metric I care about before viewing a movie.

So for of the top 10 grossing movies for 2014, CinemaScore grades are included in at least 7 of their respective wikipedia articles. 

      

Withholding sources that are not blacklisted material is POV editing especially after I provided another non-biased website as a source, but acting in poor faith that is removed as well. There have been at least 3 editors on this page in the last 24 hours with an agenda.

I'm already bored of this BS which is why I rarely edit wikipedia at this point and am going to watch Non-Stop on Bluray, I actually watch movies. Yabbadabbadootucker (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As Conservatives, my wife and I also loved the movie. I'll be watching here also. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Plot section or description?
Shouldn't someone describe what the movie is about, briefly in the lede and/or in a Plot section? VictorD7 (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The plot section should be developed, but it should also represent the criticisms of multiple WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Criticisms are featured in the "Reception" section. I don't know that I've ever seen them included in a "Plot" or "Synopsis" section. The synopsis section for Michael Moore's Sicko certainly doesn't include criticisms. VictorD7 (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Lede
Now the lead paragraph material is too short. When I first saw the editing: (1)  'Liberal' film reviewers didn't like it; [This was the thought, not the wording]; Then,(2) Film reviewers didn't like it [mildly stated, but including all reviewers]; (3) to which I put in "some reviewers didn't like it" (rewording); and now (4) An editor removes the sentence(s) and says "Stick to the facts." Someone can write a proper Lede in awhile, after the movie makes its mark. It is important in the article here. It is also important to document what you say. Right? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC) PS: I would say that the negative comments (at this time) are not important in the Lede of this article.
 * Specifically: An editor said the film received "poor ratings" from liberal critics; which was changed to "critics" which I changed to "some critics". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that you write a concise lede explaining the movie's basic scope; what it's about, especially since there's no "Plot" section. VictorD7 (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The descriptive lead-in paragraph looks great, that you added. TNKS, Victor DeeSeven. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The lede is not WP:POV. Defining them as "attacks" makes a judgement.  The wording should be significantly changed.Casprings (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The lede is still an opinion of the filmmaker/writer so it was stated as such. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Gaines, Reuters, and Non-Critic opinions
Another editor asked that I comment on the quote from Jim Gaines from Reuters so I'm happy to do that here in a separate and relevant section. The section that this quote appears was made to include positions from non critics, so a quote from Gaines who's published in a reliable source like Reuters, does merit inclusion. There should also be representation of differing opinions in this section, so long as they comes from reliable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Reliable Source evaluation is context specific: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." (emphasis WP's) The notion that your statement about Reuters can somehow serve as a template for qualifying or disqualifying subjective opinions across the board, or that, when discussing whose subjective opinions to quote in a section specifically designed for that purpose, sourcing criteria somehow trumps content criteria like due weight, is incorrect. Specifically, for the record, Gaines is a liberal opinion columnist/"analyst", which is why his subjective opinion is there to be quoted. On what basis would you disqualify Shapiro's subjective opinion, given that RS is context specific? Please comment specifically about Shapiro, preferably with evidence. Remember policy guidance that you use "common sense and editorial judgement". VictorD7 (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's simple. Proper sourcing always depends on context but that doesn't mean that context is the sole factor in determining whether a source is reliable . Even though a source may meet WP's general requirements as a reliable source, it still has to be relevant to the context it's being used in. For example, a peer reviewed journal publication from a renowned historian about the history of a civilization is generally considered to be a reliable source. However, it is no longer qualified as a reliable source when someone tries to use it on an article about astrophysics. This is what your quote from WP:Reliable is referencing. However, this quote doesn't mean that unreliable sources become reliable just because they are relevant to the context. So regarding Shapiro and Breitbart.com, they are a questionable source and the context that allows usage of questionable or self published sources are when they are used in topics/articles about themselves. This is clearly explained in WP:QS and WP:Aboutself. The quote from Shapiro doesn't meet the context requirements from WP:QS to be used on this particular article which is about the movie America. The section you're trying to include it in, is not about shapiro or breitbart.com, it's about alternative reception regarding the film. Reuters is a reliable source by general policy and is reliable in this section because it relevant to the context. Even though Shapiro is relevant to the context of this section, it doesn't meet the context of when questionable sources can be used and is, therefore, not a reliable source. This is really straightforward. The appropriate usage of self published and questionable sources are clearly defined and the context of the article doesn't override the fact that they are self published and/or questionable sources. Reuters is a reliable source with relevant context while Breitbart is a questionable source bound by the policies regarding the use of questionable sources. That's why Reuters can be used and Breitbart can't.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * LOL, "straightforward" isn't the term I'd apply to that paragraph you typed. The policy statement is straightforward, that RS status "depends" on context. That means that even sources you wouldn't generally consider reliable can be reliable in certain situations, and not just in articles about themselves. Sources aren't deemed "RS" or "not RS" across the board, therefore whether or not a subject works for a "RS" source or not can't be the determining factor in whether his subjective opinion is notable for inclusion. Writing for a prominent source can be a factor in evaluating how noteworthy his opinion is, but it's not a prerequisite. A noteworthy opinion can come from someone who isn't a writer at all. More specifically, you didn't answer my question about Shapiro. You acknowledge that commentary on the reception (his quote) is relevant to the topic, but insist that his opinion is allegedly forbidden by QS rules. Are you calling Shapiro himself a questionable source? Keep in mind that we aren't discussing facts here, and certainly not facts presented in WP's voice. Why is he any more of a questionable source for his own, subjective opinion than Gaines, the film critics, or anyone else quoted in the article is? VictorD7 (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, if a source doesn't meet WP requirements as a reliable source and is deemed a questionable source, then that is the bottleneck. The part you quoted does not remove other requirements that WP demands of sources. That's why self published sources can't be in contention with scholarly articles or other reliable sources, regardless of how "notable" or relevant you think they are. It's because self published sources and questionable sources have their own specific additional criteria that they have to meet, before they are evaluated under the contextual considerations you've quoted that apply to other sources. I've already posted the reasons, multiple times, how Breitbart.com is a questionable source and as a questionable source it has it's own criteria to meet before it can be treated like other sources. Shapiro is not a questionable source, he's a person. However, his article on Breitbart.com is a questionable source in the fact that it's an opinion piece, is not known for fact checking, doesn't cite its sources, is considered extremist, and so on. Wikipedia takes a clear stance against the use of blogs, social media, personal websites, self-published, and questionable sources as being allowed for contentious claims about others/third parties and clearly states that such sources are only reliable on topics about themselves. His opinion can't be used unless it's published in a reliable source, which is a basic requirement from WP. Just because you think a person is notable or noteworthy, doesn't mean their opinions trump WP policy and ONE of those policies are set by WP:QS.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So if the NY Times quoted Shapiro, you'd be fine with including the quote here? Why does it matter if it's an opinion piece when we're seeking and quoting various subjective opinions? VictorD7 (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you completely missed the entire point of my mentioning WP:Gaming. If Shapiro was an editor of a reliable source and/or had an article published in a reliable source, then quotes from that source can be included. If Shapiro was quoted in an article published by the NY Times then any information included from that article need to be representative of the article's content, not of the people it quoted. If the content of the article shares the same opinion as Shapiro, then the opinions of the author are the ones that should be included. For example, if the NY Times publishes a column criticizing Rush Limbaugh for his comments about global warming and quotes Rush's comments, that doesn't mean that Rush's comments can be included in an article about global warming just because they were quoted in a reliable source. They can be included in an article about Rush Limbaugh or the NY Times, but since the original source, Rush's mouth/radio show, is a questionable/self published source, then his claims are still limited by WP:QS and WP:Aboutself. However, NY Times criticism of Rush's comments does originate from a reliable source and therefore aren't limited by WP:QS and WP:Aboutself. Scoobydunk (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I got your earlier point on Gaming, it's just that we have differing interpretations of the underlying policy. You mention a NY Times opinion piece ("column"). What about a hard news story, which is actually what the Times would typically be considered RS for from a factual standpoint? Are you saying the reporter's personal views are somehow relevant? Pundits like Shapiro are often quoted by news stories as representative examples of conservative or liberal opinion. That's true in opinion pieces too, so I'm not sure even then the author's personal POV is necessarily relevant if we're just using it as a source for a quote included in the piece. For example, in this NY Times story on Biden's "shotgun" comments, the article closes by citing Bill Maher to represent the liberal reaction and Ben Shapiro to represent conservative sentiment.


 * In the above section you said that Verhoeven's quote is acceptable since the article is about his movie, but what about the quotes included from gay protesters and Camille Paglia (who's not connected to the film and is commenting as a pundit) that I cited above? I'd contend that they're all appropriate, even though Paglia's is sourced to her own book, because the section is about such reactions, just as the "Other responses" section in this article is. I'd also contend that the personal opinions of the authors of the stories or books used to source the other quotes are irrelevant, and that what policy mandates is that we faithfully transmit what they say, which in this case is that so and so said "x". VictorD7 (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've already responded to your example about the protesters on the Noticeboard, there is no point in bringing it up twice, but I'll shortly respond here. The protesters' comments are relevant to that section because that section covers people protesting the film. If it didn't discuss the protesters, then including a quote from some random protester wouldn't be merited and would be against WP policy. The topic of that section is about the protesters so including quotes from those protesters is allowed by WP policy. WP allows editors to include opinions from reliable sources. Therefore, the NY Times is a reliable source and its opinions can be represented in relevant articles. Shapiro's opinion comes from a questionable source and therefore can only be used on articles/topics pertaining specifically to Shapiro or his activities. Just because Shapiro's opinion may be quoted in a reliable source, that doesn't then give his opinion the same treatment as those from reliable sources. It still originates from a questionable or self published source. That's all there is to it. Scoobydunk (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The gay protesters were merely part of the reaction to the film, and this section is as much about opinions like Shapiro's as that section was about opinions like theirs. Furthermore, on the NPOVN page you said Paglia's POV quote was allowable because her book is published. Are you holding to that? Because, as my reply on that page observed, Shapiro's work is published too, his books by companies, his column by numerous media outlets, and this piece by Breitbart.com. It's not napkin scribblings or a personal blog.


 * More importantly, as I also said there, we have a clear, fundamental disagreement on what the policy even means as it relates to opinion coverage. Your position is that we can only cover opinions of reliable sources, even in quotes, while mine is that we can cover any noteworthy opinion, as long as we have a reliable source for the quote. Your position would exclude covering the opinions not only of non writers, but writers not deemed "reliable sources" for facts generally. Certainly the gay protesters would be out, along with Paglia (your new disclaimer notwithstanding, as simply being published would also make Shapiro a reliable source) and countless subjects currently quoted throughout Wikipedia because their POVs are deemed noteworthy. Our differing interpretations on this score is the crux of our disagreement. VictorD7 (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The source you're attempting to quote comes from is a questionable source, Paglia's quote came from a reliable source. That's all there is to it. Just because you have been published in a reliable source previously, doesn't mean everything you say is reliable or undergoes the same editorial process that your published work did. This inferences is a gross misunderstanding of what I said and of what WP policy entails. Yes, I'll "hold" to what I said about Paglia because it's been logically consistent with what I've been saying this entire time and is also consistent with WP policy. Paglia was quoted from a reliable source. You're attempting to quote Shapiro from a questionable source. That's the difference and it has nothing to do with a person's "reliability" but with the reliability of the source and the standards that make it a reliable source.


 * The topic/section including the quotes from protesters was specifically about those protesters. Sure, their were other controversies and using quotes from them on those other controversies would be a violation of WP policy. However, those quotes weren't used on those other topics/controversies, they were used on the topic specifically addressing the protesters. The protesters are not "out" since the topic they were quoted from was about them and their activities which is specifically permitted by WP:QS and WP:aboutself. The quote you're attempting to use from Shapiro is from a questionable source and such a quote can not be made to make contentious claims about others. This policy is specifically made to address opinions and claims from questionable and self published sources and that's directly pertains to Shapiro and his article that's been published in Breitbart.com.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, not only is the "Controversy" section not specifically about the gay activist opinion, but the section's lede sentence has nothing to do with it, instead covering controversy related to "overt sexuality and graphic depiction of violence". It would have been acceptable to include quotes on that topic too. The section closes by focusing on smoking. Regardless, the section is about the gay activists' reaction, and those other things, just as this article's section is about politically relevant opinions like Shapiro's and Gaines'.


 * Paglia was quoted from her own (opinion) book. On what basis is that not "questionable" when Shapiro's published Breitbart column somehow is? Furthermore, are you saying that quotes from Shapiro's several published NY Times best seller books would be acceptable? How do his syndicated columns fit in? Also, to help clarify your position, do you agree with me that a source doesn't have to endorse the quote it covers for the quote and source to be used?


 * For the record, given my NPOVN page response here, do you now agree with me that Wikipedia does, in fact, define "notable person" and that Ben Shapiro is a notable person? VictorD7 (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The "Controversy" section specifically says "the film was protested by gay rights activists who felt that the film followed a pattern of negative depiction of homosexuals in film.[30] Members of the lesbian and bisexual activist group LABIA protested against the film on its opening night." This part of the section is about/addresses the topic of protesters and therefore inclusion of quotes from the protesters is allowed by WP policies concerning questionable sources and self-published sources. Again, just because Shapiro has an alternate opinion doesn't mean that the topic specifically addresses him like Basic Instinct section specifically addresses the protesters. If you still have trouble understanding these aspects of policy then I suggest you seek assistance from someone who might explain to you in a different approach.


 * Regarding Paglia, the quoted material came from a reliable source. Breitbart.com is a questionable source and WP policy has articulated very limited usage of material from such sources. It can't be any clearer than that. Furthermore, any quoted material should originate from a reliable source and should appropriately reflect the reliable source. This means that editors can not take quotes from sources and omit the context of or frame the quoted material to represent something different than what the author of that reliable source was saying. So, "No", if a reliable source quotes Shapiro and then criticizes that point of view, you can not just paste the opinion from Shapiro from that reliable sources because A) that's not the author of the reliable source's point of view and B) It completely misrepresents the reliable source. This is exactly why a person can't take a quote like "I believe the President is a great role model for a kid" and change it to "...the President is...a kid." It has to do with misrepresenting sources and to attempt to do that to try pass an opinion from Shapiro as being from a reliable source can be seen as a clear example of WP:Gaming. If Shapiro, himself, is published in a reliable source then you can quote material from that reliable source. His article from Breitbart.com is not a reliable source, so quotes from it can not be used, especially if they make contentious claims about others, which it does. It's right there in the policy.


 * Wikipedia:Notability_(people) does define notable people but this does not prove Shapiro is a notable person "connected to the topics covered by the film." This is the key aspect of this guideline and just because he may be notable on one topic the film covers, doesn't mean he's qualified to comment on topics he's not notably connected to. Furthermore, this doesn't bypass rules set by WP:QS.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll recommend again that you adjust your tone. Your comments about me are disruptive and obviously I disagree with them. Stay focused on the topic, not me. The assertion that the Basic Instinct section somehow covers the gay activist opinion in a way that's meaningfully different from how this section covers "Other responses" to the film is nonsensical. If it's just about adding prose in Wikipedia's voice to set up the quotes, that would be easy to accomplish here as well. Maybe something like, "Many conservative commentators viewed the negative critical response as politically biased." Indeed even some of the liberal critics themselves mention that conservatives will likely react to the movie differently than they do. I think the title "Other responses", specifically calling for non film critic opinions is sufficient though.


 * I'll take your response to mean that you believe Shapiro's quotes from his own published books can be used. So.....what's the meaningful difference here? On the NPOVN page I explain how "editorial standards" are relevant in this context for verifying who said what, but not for endorsing or "fact checking" the quoted subjective opinion. The gay activists' quotes weren't deemed acceptable because they had any merit, but because they were considered noteworthy and were verified by a reliable source. Your own "President" example supports my verification position. What's important is that the quote is faithfully represented. Ellipses are allowed, as long as the meaning isn't changed. Earlier I actually had in mind a similar example: we shouldn't change "I have to work hard at killing mosquitoes, especially when they're harassing my children."...to..."I have to work hard at killing....my children." What's not required is that the source endorse or agree with the quote. A subjective, attributed opinion doesn't necessarily need to be justified or reasonable to be noteworthy. You also never really did answer my question about a hard news story, which isn't supposed to be criticizing or supporting anything. It just covers quotes.


 * I'm glad you finally agree that Ben Shapiro is a "notable" person in the MOS context, apparently leaving our only disagreement on that particular score being whether a notable political/media commentator is "connected" to the topics of politics and media. VictorD7 (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * My tone is fine but I still suggest you have someone else explain WP policy to you. I've been focused on the topic and at the same time I can also comment on your actions so long as their is substantial evidence to support my claims...which there is plenty. Regarding Basic Instinct, it's not "nonsensical" it's perfectly logical and is permitted based on WP policy. That part of the controversy section specifically addresses the topic of protesters and nothing in this article specifically addresses Shapiro. That's it. That's all there is to it, that's why using quotes from the protesters is in compliance with WP:QS and WP:aboutself, while quoting Shapiro's work from a questionable source is against WP:QS. Again, I suggest engaging with an experienced admin/editor on their talk page to clarify this difference for you.


 * Books published by a reputable publisher are more reliable than material published by self published sources and questionable sources...soooooo...that's the difference here. Again, if you're still not understanding the difference between reliable sources and questionable sources and when and where they can be used on Wikipedia, I suggest making an inquiry to an experienced editor that can explain it to you. Also, the "President" example doesn't support your verification position by any means and had no relevance to it. That example specifically addressed accurately representing the source that is being used on the WP article and how you can not misrepresent a source to fit your own narrative. It is important that a quote is faithfully represented, but it's also important that such a quote merits inclusion and meets WP policies. Using a quote from a self published or questionable source can not be used when it makes contentious claims about others. Even if the author of a reliable source uses a quote that originated in a questionable source, that quote is still from a questionable source and its use is governed by WP:QS. Again, whatever inclusion you make from a reliable source has to represent that reliable source and can't be representative of the questionable sources or self published sources that are used within that reliable source. So if a scientist quotes Ken Ham about creationism in a piece that's published in a scholarly journal, that doesn't mean you can just extract what Ken Ham says about science and include into an article about evolution. Just including Ken Ham's quote is not representative of the article that was written by the scientist an published by the peer reviewed journal and when referencing a source it should represent what the author says, since it's his/her source, and not what the people he quotes in it think, since it's not their source. Scoobydunk (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll refrain from responding in kind to your insulting tone except to remind you that between us you're the only one who's been forced to concede being wrong about policy in this discussion, specifically your long running denial that Ben Shapiro is a "notable person" as defined by Wikipedia.


 * The BS page only "covers" the gay activist reception outside of the quotes in the sense that it sets them up with prose describing their outrage. You failed to respond to my observation that we could obviously use prose to similarly set up the conservative reaction here, not that I agree that the difference is meaningful anyway since the section title already means we're covering such opinions.


 * The "president" example was designed to illustrate faithfully representing a source, and point out that doing so doesn't necessarily mean including the source author's personal POV about the covered quotes (assuming it's even known). Your claim that "a quote" from a questionable source, by which you mean the person quoted and not even necessarily the source, cannot be used to make a contentious claim about others has no basis in policy. Surely the gay activists are a "questionable source" by your logic, and therefore their opinions (and those of Paglia btw, and countless other pundits and noteworthy non writers currently quoted on Wikipedia) should be prohibited from the BS page. In other words the article shouldn't have covered the gay activists' opinions. If you simply assert "it did" so therefore the quotes are allowed, then there's no argument against us also covering the conservative reaction here. Again, your "creationism" comments would be covered by Due Weight, particularly since you specify such quotes appearing in reliable sources, so acknowledging that QS and other sourcing policies pertain to...well...sourcing rather than content (the quoted opinions merely being what the sources cover) wouldn't mean that legions of scary creationists would start flooding articles and be out to get you. VictorD7 (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I argued that Shapiro was not notable based on the extrapolation you made from WP:N which I wasn't wrong about. That's why you had to find another WP policy to substantiate your claim, because WP:N didn't define what a "notable person" was and you admitted that you had to do some "figuring" to reach your conclusion. FYI, you can consolidate into a single discussion at any point, so stop asking me to do it, you can.


 * The "president" example was designed to illustrate that you must represent the source you wish to include information about on WP and not use a source to represent something it doesn't, which in this case would be a quote that originated from a completely different source. Hence why you can't use a reliable source that criticizes Ken Ham by dissecting one of his quotes to include WP information that is representative of Ken Ham's opinion and not the author of that reliable source. Also, it's not my logic that makes the protesters "questionable sources" or "self published" sources, it's WP policy and WP:QS articulates that it's appropriate to use their quotes on topics about themselves and that section of the "BS" page does address the topic of those specific protesters. So quotes from those protesters can be used. Nothing in this article addresses Shapiro or Breitbart specifically as a topic and therefore the topic is not about themselves and so including quotes they've made that originate from questionable sources is not permitted. Attempting to use "prose" to set up a situation here where you can include Shapiro would likely be a violation of NPOV, especially since your comments indicate a willingness to change something to include a Shapiro instead of focusing on article neutrality. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

On notability you outright said, "Just because a person has a WP article about them, DOESN'T make that person notable or an expert." And for numerous posts you insisted that Wikipedia drew a distinction between a "notable person" and a "notable topic". That was despite me having quoted the use of the words "notable...people" directly from the WP:N page, which in turn links to the Notability (people) page. Your later acknowledgement that having an article about himself does make a person notable after all is an objective concession that you were wrong. You misquote my "figure" statement, since I repeatedly observed that WP:N does clearly define "notable". I only said "I have to figure" that MOS uses the same definition.

Your "president" example dealt with a Wikipedia editor altering a quote to change its meaning, which has nothing to do with our policy disagreement, except insofar as it illustrates what I think faithfully representing a source actually means. It doesn't mean that the source author has to agree with the various quotes it covers for us to use those quotes or that source. You never did comment on my point that hard news stories aren't even supposed to have a POV on what they cover. You also didn't explain why it's alright for Basic Instinct to cover gay activist opinions but for this article to not cover conservative ones. Such a double standard is a clear violation of neutrality. VictorD7 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does make a distinction between a notable person and a notable topic which is why there are separate articles addressing the two. If there was no distinction then there wouldn't be a need to 2 separate articles and the first article you attempted to "figure" from didn't define "notable people". The only thing I've conceded is that your latest link did define notable people in terms of people who deserve to have an article written about them. I'm still not convinced that this is the same type of "notable person" that MoS guidelines refer to which, in my opinion, is more closely related to an expert or similar status and not just being the subject of a Wikipedia article.


 * My president example was a demonstration of the type of inappropriate editing that is not permitted by Wikipedia and it wasn't strictly limited to misrepresenting quotes, but the reliable source in its entirety. Also, the two articles are different and it's not a double standard. For the controversy section of Basic Instinct there was enough media coverage, public awareness, and material available to make the protests from the activists worthy of inclusion. If there were protests that had a similar amount of coverage about "America" then that could be included in a controversy section as well. Since the protests had enough material and coverage to be represented in the article, that means editors can also include quotes/opinions from the protesters since they are the subject of that part of the topic. Shapiro is not the subject of alternative reception. There is no controversy surrounding Shapiro's opinions to make him or his opinions part of the topic of the article. There's the difference. The protests actually have enough documentation from multiple sources to make them warrant inclusion. Shapiro doesn't, it's just his opinion from a questionable source. Whatever point you've tried to make about hard news stories is irrelevant and that's why I haven't addressed it. This aspect of the conversation has to do with reliable sources vs. questionable sources. Whether it's a hard news story or an opinion piece doesn't matter. It only matters if it's from a questionable source or a reliable source. That's why Gaines merits inclusion and Shapiro doesn't, because the quotes pertaining Gaines come from a reliable source and Shapiro comes from a questionable source. It's very simple.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the Notability (people) page just goes into more detail on people specific criteria for notability than the overall WP:N page (which also discusses notable people) does. That type of branching off through links to more focused coverage of topics is the entire basis of how Wikipedia works. The page also links off into numerous other topics found in the upper right hand corner (e.g., , ). The MOS guidelines actually say "notable persons or experts", implying the two aren't synonyms. More precisely, if a notable person (one meriting his own article) has expressed an opinion about this particular movie or a specific aspect of it, and he's connected in some way to the topic(s), then there's a decent chance it's noteworthy (barring space/repetition concerns; it's more likely to be noteworthy if it represents some important angle that isn't already covered), which is why the MOS is worded as it is. If all this evidence doesn't convince you, I don't know what would.


 * Your president example only illustrated changing up the meaning of a quote, so was ineffective in illustrating anything I don't already agree with. I keep raising the hard news issue to underscore the absurdity of your apparent contention that a RS has to endorse the quotes it covers for us to use the quotes and source. That's not Wikipedia policy or practice. While I reject your assertion that Breitbart is "questionable", your policy interpretations would have consequences that reach far beyond Breitbart and Shapiro. Regarding your defense of the double standard, the upset gay activists didn't get that much mainstream media coverage. As a high profile feature film BS in general received more media attention than a conservative documentary like America, but that's irrelevant. The latter has been deemed notable too and therefore the same sort of controversies and tangential topics merit coverage in this article that received it in the other one (if they exist, which they do). There's certainly no policy stating that gay protests merit coverage but conservative outrage expressed through the written word regarding an explicitly political film don't, and there have been plenty of conservative reactions about the film. It's the type of political controversy these articles are supposed to cover. It's very simple indeed. VictorD7 (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussing "notable people" is not defining "notable people" and even then, WP:N didn't discuss notable people, it only mentioned it in reference to the creation of lists. So this doesn't refute what I said. Also, i didn't say "synonymous" I said something "similar" and that's why they're both listed as examples to be used for the same purpose.


 * Your complaints about "BS" and the coverage of protesters is irrelevant to the fact that there exists numerous independent reliable sources that covered the occasion. If you're trying to argue that Shapiro's quote meets similar coverage, then I'm sure you can list all of the independent reliable sources that discuss and cover Shapiro's opinion about this film that would warrant a topic addressing him specifically. If you can't do that, then this point is moot. Also, I haven't asserted that a RS has to endorse a quote it covers, merely mentioned it as a possible way a quote can be included but then qualified that by saying it's better to just quote the author of the reliable source than using a quote that originated from a questionable source. My main contention, in this matter, is that the material included into the WP article needs to represent the reliable source it comes from. Your assertion that my policy interpretations would have far reaching consequences is unsupported and is disproved by the numerous articles that are currently written with the understanding of WP policies similar to my own. It's actually your interpretation that would have far reaching consequences and my multiple upon multiple examples have shown exactly why. This is also why you're the one raising objections and asking questions about current articles and I'm the one left explaining the policies that allow them to be constructed in such a manner. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussing what "notable" means, and applying that qualifier to "people", is defining notable people. Explicitly mentioning notable "people" confirms such a concept exists even without the extra link to the dedicated page about notable people. Of course your claim that, "Just because a person has a WP article about them, DOESN'T make that person notable" has been totally and utterly refuted. Similarly, I'm the one who's been providing actual examples supporting my position on source policy and explaining why your interpretation contradicts widespread precedent and/or is self contradicting, not you. If you aren't asserting that a RS needs to endorse the quote used, then it's unclear what you think "represent the reliable source it comes from" means apart from not changing the meaning of what's quoted, which is my position. Surely you can't mean that our inclusion needs to cover or summarize all the material in a source, given the huge numbers of massive books, PDFs, long hard news articles etc. used to source a single fact or opinion throughout Wikipedia.


 * The controversy here is about the critical reception itself, as evidenced by Shapiro's comments (and those of many other prominent conservatives; e.g., , , [ http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/left-comes-out-screaming-against-dsouzas-america/ ]). Specifically, it's about the absurdity of having admittedly overwhelmingly liberal film critics review a conservative political documentary in the context of pretending that their opinions are somehow authoritative and the only ones that matter. Shapiro weighed in on the obvious political dynamic at play just as Paglia weighed in on the reception to Basic Instinct. BTW, Paglia's comments aren't sourced to "numerous independent reliable sources" but rather her own writing, and the gay activist segment generally is sourced to opinionated pieces far less prominent than Breitbart. The gay activist quotes themselves are taken from a collection of opinion essays. Likewise The Hunger Games example cited above kicks off its "Controversies" section with the feminist blog "Jezebel" and sourcing from The Huffington Post (the liberal equivalent of Breitbart). Slate and other highly opinionated sites are also used. When discussing subjective opinions on controversial or politicized topics the set of reliable sources is much broader than when discussing a more scholarly topic. Per Verifiability policy, "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." Since this is an explicitly political film, prohibiting coverage of the undeniable political dynamic at play and deleting the conservative viewpoint violates the "common sense" RS guidelines tell editors to use, particularly regarding WP:NPOV's mandate that, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias."  The question we should be asking is whether Shapiro's opinion is noteworthy here, and given his notability (per MOS), along with the facts that he comments specifically on this topic and represents a significant viewpoint (obviously a major "side"), the objective, neutral answer is clearly "yes".


 * Even from a strict film review standpoint this article is ridiculously one sided. This left leaning writer at the New Orleans Times Picayune did a better job of providing balanced review coverage than this skewed Wikipedia article currently does, including positive reviews from notable commentators like John Fund and Breitbart's Christian Toto, either one of which would provide a better example of the positive reviews than the lone, mostly negative "positive" review quote currently used. VictorD7 (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * How do you know Mike Scott of the New Orleans Times Picayune is a "left leaning writer"? Even this example of yours from "the left" makes it clear that most of the reviews of the film are "not particularly glowing".  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discernment. No one's disputing most professional critics' reviews are negative, as most such critics are liberal, but there should be at least one truly positive review quote represented. VictorD7 (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, we don't use personal speculation to guide the content of articles, nor should we use talk pages to speculate about living individuals such as Scott. Please keep any further personal speculation about particular living persons off the talk page.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 12:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it's editorial judgment. More pertinently, would you oppose using one of the positive reviews the newspaper cites for an article quote? VictorD7 (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, WP:N defined notability strictly as it applies to topics and explicitly said that and limited its usage to that. So your extrapolation was unfounded by that particular article which is what I was arguing. Also, my understanding of WP policy has been consistent and has directly explained all of the red herring arguments and question you've asked regarding Gaines, Basic Instinct protesters, how topics merit inclusion in articles, why we don't see the Evolution article mostly derived from Ken Ham and Rush Limbaugh, so on and so forth. Your position that WP:Bias and WP:Context let you include anything you want so long as it's relevant and attributed is completely incorrect. If that was the case, then we wouldn't need all the rest of WP policy that addresses scholarly sources, questionable sources, and self published sources. Those guidelines aren't limited to what's should be written in WP voice, but address which sources merit inclusion in articles. Again, that's why we can't include a quote from random napkin scribblings which your interpretation of the policy would allow so long as it was directly attributed to the person and was relevant. No, WP has a clear set of guidelines that determine the reliability of sources and if a source is a questionable source then it has very restrictive usage. Nothing in WP overrides those restrictions, to my knowledge, especially not WP:Biased and WP:Context. Again, if WP:Biased and WP:Context allowed the inclusion of sources that don't meet WP guidelines as reliable sources, then quotes from Rush Limbaugh could be plastered all over any political webpage and Ken Ham could be plastered all over nearly any science related webpage. Those pages aren't largely derived of quotes from those people because they don't meet WP's reliability guidelines and can't be used when much stronger more reliable sources are used. This is exactly why you shouldn't see an opinion from a source published by a scholarly peer reviewed journal next to an opinion from Ken Ham's personal blog. It's because WP articles are suppose to represent the most reliable sources and a self published/questionable source can not be used when there are stronger more reliable sources and the WP:QS give additional restrictions to limit questionable sources.


 * Also, I don't see a single reliable source in your 3-4 additional sources. Furthermore, I don't see a reliable source actually describing and identifying a controversy over the film. All you've posted are questionable sources that complain about "liberal media", and that is not representative of a controversy specifically regarding this film. Also, I didn't say that Paglia's opinion was represented in multiple independent reliable sources, I said the protests were represented in multiple independent reliable sources, which is why inclusion of the protests are merited as a topic on the Basic Instinct page. You've conflated these issues. First you complained and questioned why Paglia and the protesters were included. After I explained that to you multiple times, you changed the argument to address why the protests were included at all. I then explained that to you by telling you that there were multiple independent reliable sources that covered the protests. A basic bing search yields articles from the Associated Press, Baltimore Sun, the Latimes, TheSeattleTimes, and more. These are independent reliable sources that covered the protests making them worthy of mention in an article about Basic Instinct. Your unreliable sources that merely complain about the liberal media doesn't not mean there is an actually controversy over the reception of the film, just a bunch of people complaining about it. Now, if those conservative authors wanted to picket or boycott liberal critics and then that story was covered in reliable sources like local and national newspapers, then you might be able to include that as a topic in this article.


 * I've never been against including conservative opinions about the movie so long as they come from a reliable source. Ben Shapiro's article comes from a questionable source and as WP policy demands, it can not be used on this article, especially since it makes contentious claims about others. Regarding the Noticeboard response, I did mean MSN instead of NBC and it doesn't discredit Breitbart it merely reports on a story the Breitbart put forward that was entirely based on a rumor. In comparison, Breitbart.com regularly bases other news sites, not just reporting on errors, but taking objective polls and using opinion pieces to criticize and discredit other outlets. This is clearly defined as a conflict of interest and the article I linked to showed how breitbart.com both promotes it's partners/parent affiliates while trying to discredit other sites. WP:QS defines sources that are largely comprised of personal opinion as questionable sources. That's not a cirrcular argument, that's WP's definition and classification of a questionable source. Breitbart.com is a questionable source by multiple aspects of WP's guidelines determining what a questionable source is. At this point, there's really nothing else to say on the matter. If you feel that breitbart.com is a reliable source then you can take it to the RS Noticeboard, again, where I'll be more than delighted to post example upon example of how Breitbart.com meets WP's qualifications as a questionable source. Scoobydunk (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you've gone back to claiming that WP:N doesn't define what a notable person is. It defines notability, uses the wording "notable items or people" and links directly to the Notability (people) page, which uses the same definition: someone meriting their own article. My contention that Ben Shapiro is a notable person was right all along. Case closed.


 * Your policy interpretations and other positions have been all over the map. At one point you acknowledged that, "Shapiro is relevant to the context of this section", only to pivot later and assert that he isn't and claim you had never said otherwise. My valid illustrations of precedent (not "red herrings" at all) for policy application illustrate the inconsistencies in your position. You were never able to explain why Paglia's collection of personal opinion essays is somehow not "questionable" when Shapiro's Breitbart column allegedly is. There's no "published book" exception listed in QS relating to the part that says "rely heavily on...personal opinion", and no reason why there should be from a fact checking standpoint (her opinion essays aren't meaningfully "fact checked" by the publisher), so, given your interpretation of QS, the Paglia book should be deemed QS, as should the essay book used to source the gay activist quotes, the Hunger Games material sourced to blogs I cited above that you didn't address, and countless quoted opinions throughout Wikipedia. For that matter all the low quality Hollywood liberal opinion rags used to source the reviews we quote should be deemed QS too, since the MOS mentioning them are merely guidelines that should crumble in the face of verification policy. Of course that interpretation also contradicts RS quoting guidelines: "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source." Since direct quotes often involve opinions, the "original" source is likely to be highly opinionated by definition, and yet not only is quoting from opinion pieces allowed, but preferred over using a "reliable secondary source".


 * Your "napkin scribblings" comment has nothing to do with Shapiro or Breitbart. All reliable sources are required to be published for others to see, even if they're self published (Breitbart columns aren't self published either, of course). As has already been repeatedly explained to you, what keeps political or other random quotes (like from the Ham guy you're fixated on) from covering articles are areas like DUE WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and other page layout policy/guidelines, including good old fashioned consensus editorial judgement ("common sense"), not Verification policy. We determine what's noteworthy by evaluating reliable sources, but what's "reliable" varies by topic and statement. Quoting from the Identifying reliable sources talk page:


 * "Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?


 * No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual.


 * What if the source is biased?


 * Sources are allowed to be biased or non-neutral. Only Wikipedia articles are required to be neutral. Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."


 * The above statements also show there's a hierarchy involved, meaning just because one source isn't deemed as generally good as another doesn't mean it can't be used. The same holds true when deciding what subtopics merit covering. A political documentary doesn't have to receive as much news coverage as a major feature dramatic film like Basic Instinct to be notable (meaning it merits its own article), and a controversy or significant group of opinions doesn't have to have hard news stories written about it to merit some coverage (as some of the other controversies on that page and elsewhere illustrate), particularly if there aren't hard news stories about the other things on the page either, meaning a mention won't throw things out of due weight whack. Movie articles have nothing to do with "peer reviewed journals", nor is sourcing limited to the various hard news stories you mentioned (as I've proved). The set of reliable sources is much broader for subjective opinions related to a political documentary than it would be for a scientific theory, and high profile conservative pundits who represent a significant position related to an explicitly political movie deserve a mention in the section set apart for such subjective opinions, especially if a very notable mainstream conservative author wrote an entire article on the topic. All the sources I cited would be reliable sources for their own views and this topic (at least the subjective portion), and are relevant to this page.


 * Yeah, I figured you had confused "MSN" with "NBC", probably having in mind "MSNBC" (Microsoft and NBC split up years ago, though the tv network retains the name for branding purposes), which would be ironic given that they eek out a living by attacking Fox News daily (not to mention MSNBC's frequent journalistic scandals). But that doesn't mean they should be prohibited from use here. Your assertions about "conflict of interest" bear absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to actual COI policy. All the extensive text explaining COI focuses on personal conflicts like financial and spousal, or a company commenting on itself, is context specific, and has nothing to do with ideology. Certainly Shapiro has no financial stake in D'Souza's movie that I'm aware of. Even if he did it might not matter in this situation, as you defended quoting the Basic Instinct director earlier because of his association with the film. But I'm glad we agree that MSN's piece didn't discredit Breitbart. It was negative, but didn't discredit the news site.


 * To recap our most important policy disagreement:


 * Your position is that Breitbart is QS (per the Verification page) and therefore policy prohibits us from quoting anything from it here.


 * My position is that Verification policy deals with verification, and, without conceding that Breitbart is "QS", that QS addresses citing such sources for facts in Wikipedia's voice or possibly quotes from others, but doesn't prohibit us from covering quoted opinions deemed relevant with in text attribution (even Hitler's Mein Kampf, if noteworthy to a section).


 * I doubt either of us will budge from these positions any time soon. VictorD7 (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Breitbart is QS and not only does WP:Verifiability explain where questionable sources can be used but so does WP:Reliable. Like I said, if you want to continue debating whether it's a QS or reliable source, then take it to the appropriate noticeboard. Inclusion of his quote should not be permitted until this issue is resolved.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Shapiro is a published expert in the field, and it bears repeating that we not only disagree on whether Breitbart is QS, but whether QS policy prohibits such sources from being used to source quotes of their own attributed opinions ("material on themselves"). VictorD7 (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the appropriate noticeboard will address and explain both of those aspects. Should you make a RS noticeboard topic you should simply state and substantiate your argument why Breitbart.com qualifies as a reliable source and I'll state and substantiate my argument of why it's a questionable source. We can both make inquiry on the uses of such sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The previous noticeboard discussions were inconclusive and broke down along party lines, so I'm not optimistic about another attempt there. Also, I'm not sure how experienced or truly knowledgeable on policy the editors who tend to post on those boards are, The discussions typically only attract a few posters at most, and the noticeboard intro says decisions reached there aren't binding anyway. VictorD7 (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, since Gamaliel has closed the other thread, and that thread op was resolved anyway (or else I'd revert his unjustified hatting), I'd appreciate it if you'd reply to my last post to you here. VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Almost nothing is binding on WP with the exception of Arbitration and they don't handle content disputes. Posting on the correct noticeboard is designed to get people more familiar with those aspects/policies of Wikipedia. If that doesn't succeed then you can move on to 3rd opinion after the appropriate noticeboard has been used before going to the admin noticeboard. The difference with the next noticeboard is that I'd be an involved party so we shouldn't be responding to each other and only to uninvolved parties, if necessary. You'd lay down your material why you believe it's a reliable source and i'll post mine about why it's a questionable source. From there other people will get involved...or won't. My response to your last bit in the hatted thread will depend on the standards WP has when mentioning awards. I doubt every time an award is mentioned that it's preceded with "rare", "coveted", "prestigious", so on and so forth even though there may be many reliable sources that characterize them as such. Likewise, another reliable source could call such awards "pointless", "insignificant", etc. So just because a source uses a specific qualifier, how does WP determine which qualifier will be used to describe the award within articles? My bet is that subjective qualifiers aren't used to maintain a neutral POV, but if you find a WP policy that says differently, then I'm glad to read it. My position will be determined by WP's standards regarding subjective editorial language when describing accolades/awards.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * A grade isn't an award. Awards are inherently rare, so there's no need to add such a qualifier, but readers likely don't know how common an A+ CinemaScore grade is. Do most films get one? Half? No, all the sources to comment on the issue describe it as rare, and typically other movie articles (e.g. The Avengers, Lone Survivor) qualify the A+ grade with "rare". That's standard practice for dealing with A+ CinemaScore grades, and I'm only asking that it be followed here too. VictorD7 (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You'll have my decision when you answer my question and determine what WP standards are regarding the listing of any sort of accolade. Listing 2 examples specifically related to Cinemascore is not representative of WP's stance on using descriptive qualifiers for accolades or awards.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure precisely what you're asking for, or why you're conflating awards with grades (the latter can be average or bad too). You asked for standard Wikipedia practice, and I provided recent examples specifically relating to this context, which is a good thing, not a bad thing. It's about providing informative context. VictorD7 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Still no answer then? Also, 2 examples do not a standard make, something like a conflict resolution over the matter, maybe an essay, or something similar would suffice.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Answer to what? A grade isn't an award. Providing an informative qualifier in this case is no different than the "methodology" info Specifico added, except the former is far more noteworthy. VictorD7 (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, so no answer then.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The MOS "Accolades" section states that, "The number of accolades a film has received and any related background information can help determine how to present them.....The section can list accolades and also use prose to provide context for some accolades, such as a general overview or a summary of controversy behind a given accolade." That clearly suggests using qualifiers, if appropriate. Such context is even more appropriate when discussing a grade. VictorD7 (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Good, then that would substantiate including prose to provide context on the cinemascore rating. Something like "As of July 5th, 2014, America is one of 53 films to earn an A+ rating from cinemascore." That's an example of context through the use of prose that is strictly factual and objective. No where does this part of policy say that subjective qualifiers can be used. Hope this helps.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Rare" is how the sources universally describe it, and is no more "subjective" than other descriptive editorial prose in Wikipedia's voice is. Qualifiers like "rare" are used in articles all the time, especially if the sources use them. We even sometimes call films a "success" or "failure". Such qualifiers are explicitly endorsed. That said, if you oppose "rare", would you support a fact based sentence similar to the one you suggested? I don't know of a precise count up to date enough to include America, but a sentence sourced to this piece saying..."From 1982 to 2011 only 52 films received an A+ CinemaScore grade."...would provide "context" and "related background information". VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Rare" is still entirely subjective and provides no objective meaning. The only last thing I'd be hesitant with providing objective context would be importance. The time period is a bit arbitrary and even the source, Cinemascore, doesn't necessarily merit a bunch of additional detail. However, as a compromise, I would not be opposed to its inclusion so long as the other contextual information that stemmed this thread is also included.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's no different from Wikipedia saying George Mason University is "recognized for its strong programs in economics, law, creative writing, computer science, and business." The time period is dictated by THR piece studying that period, a limitation often encountered on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what "other contextual information" you're referring to. The Gaines quote that started this section is still in, and the unsourced, inaccurate OR sentence that precipitated the other thread was deleted with almost universal support. VictorD7 (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This aspect of the conversation started with the inclusion of America being ranked 70 something in highest grossing movies that never reached the top ten. That's what I'm referring to and the whole basis on this conversation was your inquiry that if I supported that, then I should support context for the Cinemscore as well. The sample sentence I'v already provided gives appropriate objective context. Also, just because editors took editorial privileges or POV on other articles doesn't justify the use of subjective POV language on this one. Scoobydunk (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Words like "success", "failure", "strong", "rare", etc. are summary words endorsed by guidelines when they appropriately reflect the sources' characterization. The "OR sentence" I started the section you reference over was the original one preceding the "70 something" sentence that has since been deleted. I suggested the "70 something" sentence be moved to another section if we deemed it worth including at all, and it was. It has since been deleted (by another editor) along with a similar factual segment on the rationale that the material wasn't sufficiently noteworthy due to the lack of mentions in movie articles with higher rankings. I don't see the connection between the sentence you reference and the CinemaScore segment, which sits in a completely different section. VictorD7 (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You were suppose to supply a WP policy source for those subjective terms a long time ago, does this mean you found one? Also, you say "I don't see the connection between the sentence you reference and the CinemaScore segment" which is odd because you're the one who connected the two to begin with. I articulated my support of the inclusion of the other sentence and then you asked "Scoobydunk, If you support providing informative context so readers can make their own decisions about the movie's success, then why not support inclusion of the word "rare" to qualify the CinemaScore grade...?" So I find it contradicting and dishonest to say you suddenly don't see a connection when you're the one who made the connection to begin with. You portrayed that connection as being the inclusion of "informative context" and now that one has been dismissed then so should the other. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You asked me for guidelines on accolades and I provided them. There is no policy prohibiting the use of "rare" as long as that's how the sources characterize it, "rare" is frequently used throughout Wikipedia (including on policy pages themselves), and in this case the sources almost universally apply that very qualifier. As for option B, including the factual sentence instead, you're confusing me seeking consistency in your application of a very broad rationale (more informative context) with me acknowledging that the more specific rationale another editor used to delete one section's material doesn't apply to the other's. The sentence you support was deleted along with the similar one I had added (which you didn't mention restoring for some reason) on the grounds that other articles where the same rankings would presumably be even more noteworthy (as they're higher) didn't include them. That's different from this proposal, which is just explaining what an already included CinemaScore grade means, and does reflect what's been done on other articles. This difference can't be legitimately ignored, and your assertion of dishonesty is totally false and uncalled for. VictorD7 (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

OR sentence needs removal.
Seriously? 

"But that does not gauge the size of the target audience as the film never made the top 10 in the box office. Among films that never made the top 10, this film ranked #78."

This newly added segment is an overt attempt to discredit the CinemaScore grade, commenting directly on it in Wikipedia's voice, despite the reference added not even mentioning phrases like "target audience" or "CinemaScore". If anything, it lists movies that sustained a strong performance over time without ever enjoying a massive weekend pop (by regular movie standards), validating the high CinemaScore grade. Somebody please revert this clearly inappropriate POV edit. VictorD7 (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How can it be original research when there is a citation from Box Office Mojo at which clearly shows that this film is ranked #78 among films released since 1982 which failed to make the Top 10 in the box office??? Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The OR part is the first sentence. It's entirely OR. As for the second sentence, even if it was deemed noteworthy it would belong in the "Marketing and release" section, not the "Other responses" section. I'll also ask you to revert yourself and restore the CinemaScore segment, since its use is explicitly endorsed by the MOS guidelines, it's used in virtually every movie article, and there's absolutely no consensus for removing it. VictorD7 (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Waiting for another response besides that of VictorD7. Once again, explain the citation I provided above to back up the statement. Once again, it is  from Box Office Mojo.  Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The first sentence 'But...' doesn't come from the source, and is unnecessarily contradictory. At best, you could simply say ' Among films that never made the top 10, this film ranked #78.' since that's all the table really says. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Restored citation and rewrote text from Darryl from Mars' advice in the Marketing and release section. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The result is ambiguous (and wordy). Does it mean 88 amongst all films, which would include the top ten (78 + 10), or 78 amongst all films? – S. Rich (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither, as I understand it. From the set of all films, remove all that have -ever- been in the top ten any given weekend. Of those that remain, this film ranks 78th in (total?) box office. Perhaps it can be clarified Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Appears to be a pretty meaningless statistic and one that is not set in stone. The statement is only valid at the time that statement is made.  Steelbeard, what message are you trying to convey?  It would appear to be little more than meaningless WP:TRIVIA  Arzel (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This statistic does provide some context so readers know how successful or unsuccessful the film was compared to others. This informs them that it never ranked in the top ten and where is falls on a list of movies that never made the top ten in terms of gross earnings. So i don't support the original wording and POV that was used to present this information but am happy with Darryl's suggestion and the tweaking of the inclusion to be more neutral.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That statistic does not tell you that at all. From a money point of view, a successful movie makes more than it costs.  If a movie costs $1,000,000 to make and then makes $14,000,000 it is successful.  If a movie costs $100,000,000 to make and then makes $50,000,000 than that movie is not successful.  You are confusing box office totals with movie success.  By your logic Battlefield Earth, one of the worst movies ever made, was more successful than this movie, even though from a business model, this movie is vastly more successful.  If this is the reason for inclusion, than it is original research, and a misleading bit of original research as well.  Arzel (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Net profit is also not the only measure of success a movie can have. It's an interesting measure, no question, but Wikipedia is for the general reader, not just the general investor. Battlefield Earth was both a critical and financial failure, although the failure was so noted that the movie will be remembered longer than others that made a net profit (and some critical or popular successes never made a net profit, of course). Nutty Professor II: The Klumps and Wild Hogs were financially successful; I don't think that's all we can say about their reception. If a film has noted financial, critical, or popular success or failure, it should be noted sourced to RS, even if it's only one area (and without framing it as a promotional claim). __ E L A Q U E A T E   14:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, but that statistic is not providing any useful information. Arzel (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But then we do not know how successful this film is because the production and promotion costs have been withheld. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Arzel - I'm sorry, are you saying that list doesn't inform the reader that America never made the top ten and isn't ranked 78 out of movies that have never ranked in the top ten in weekly box office earnings? Yeah...it does, and that provides context for the reader to make their own decision on the success of the movie, along with any other metric they choose to use for determining success. There are more points of view than just what a film netted and that's part of what makes this information merit inclusion.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It highest ranking is alreadly listed. That statistic tells you absolutely zero about the success of the film, and if this is what you are trying to do with that statistic then you are adding origianl research.  I will ask again, what is trying to be conveyed with this statement?  Arzel (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Scoobydunk, If you support providing informative context so readers can make their own decisions about the movie's success, then why not support inclusion of the word "rare" to qualify the CinemaScore grade, which is the language used on the Avengers page ("CinemaScore reported that audiences gave the film a rare A+ grade.") and virtually every news report mentioning an A+ grade? We could use these sources:, , . VictorD7 (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The use of 'rare' is misleading, again, because that does not indicate the size of the audience for this film. It is a given, backed by citation, that the film NEVER made the top 10 in the box office.  But then, I stated that time and time again here.  Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, as a matter of fact (and Policy) you can't.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Our disagreement on policy is established, but as for "fact", if the grade is "rare" when applied to every other movie, then it's rare for this one too. VictorD7 (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just your unpublished opinion, Victor.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it's in the published sources I linked to above. VictorD7 (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding those 'published' sources, the Hollywood Reporter and Yahoo! links are not related to this film. The Blaze is not a reliable source for inclusion as a citation as already stated in its own subsection further up this page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Those other sources cover the rarity of A+ generally, just like how the "CinemaScore methodology" source Specifico included doesn't mention this movie, but covers that particular topic generally. I disagree on The Blaze, but that's the dispute over policy I mentioned. Regarding "fact", we all know that A+ is rare, as the multitude of sources on the subject say. It's not like there are any sources denying that an A+ is rare. Only partisan Wikilawyering/sheer numbers is keeping that contextual info out. VictorD7 (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To the untrained eye, Vic, it looks as if you are chasing your tail.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank God for training. Does this source you added mention this movie? I'm not the one saying it needs to, mind you. VictorD7 (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW Vic, how does anybody know A+ is rare? Mabye the incidence of grades is the equally distributed from A+ to F?  I assume F is as far as they go with this.   SPECIFICO  talk  20:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question. As for yours, the fact that only 50-60 films out of thousands have received an A+ is why countless sources attach the qualifier "rare" to it. VictorD7 (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm awestruck, but unconvinced. Au revoir.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said....VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @Arzel - "Success" is a term based in subjectivity. Providing additional context only supplies readers with more information. Maybe a movie's ranking in terms of gross revenue doesn't say anything about "success" to you, but it clearly can for other people. Other people may not think the cinemascore is a measure of "success" since it only polls people who've seen the movie and doesn't represent the general public who wouldn't even bother wasting time seeing the movie to begin with. Same with critics. Many people place value on critics' reception of a film and would determine it to be a "successful" film based on critic ratings. Other may be inclined to disagree. Regardless of what you find successful or unsuccessful, there is nothing against including additional information that informs the reader where this film ranks compared to other films.
 * @ Victor - Including "rare" is a violation of WP:editorial since the only source I've seen so far is the Blaze article which some believe is a questionable source. If it's not a questionable source and is a reliable source then I wouldn't have a problem with a quote being used that's attributed to the reliable source. However, for consistency, it's better represented as "America is 1 of 60 films to receive an A+ from cinemascore in the last x years." This provides context without the additional narrative. Scoobydunk (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you not see the other sources I posted a few posts above, or is your position that every source in an article has to directly mention the article topic? If not then, google "rare a+ cinemascore grade" (sans quotes) and see how many different articles pop up calling it "rare" when discussing a variety of movies or CinemaScore generally. VictorD7 (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Steelbeard - What message are you trying to convey? Please answer this question, This is my third attempt at receiving an answer.  Arzel (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What question? I believe I answered it already along with Scoobydunk and Specifico. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You have not and you continue to not explain what message that the ranking of 78 (currently 76) is trying to convey. There must be some reason why you think this meaningless statistic is meaningful.  Neither Scoobydunk or Specifico have given a reason why it is nothing more than insignificant trivia.  Arzel (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It IS MEANINGFUL as I stated too many times before here that we do not know this film's production and distribution costs so we DO NOT KNOW if this film is a hit or a flop. And this film NEVER made the top 10 in the weekend box office so we leave it to the reader to determine whether this film is a hit or a flop.  The ranking in the list of films that did not make the top 10 helps the reader determine for him or herself. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You saying it is meaningful does not make it so, that it never made the top ten is irrelevant to whether the producers view it as a success or not. In addition, that statistic does not tell the reader anything which could be said to make a judgment about how well the film did.  We don't even know how many movies are in that group, but it is presumably thousands as there are over 6,000 movies in the database.  The inclusion has no context, but the implication is that it was unsuccessful.  By your own statement you say that we don't know if it was a hit or a flop, so why is that meaningless statistic so important to you?  Arzel (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, answer this. WHY is info on the film's production and distribution costs BEING WITHHELD??? Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer this site since it actually discusses the rating system and rarity instead of just saying "rare". Scoobydunk (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you'd support adding "rare" to the article if that source is used? I'll point out that the other sources I cited expounded on the grade's rarity too though. In fact at one point there was sentence sourced to the HR piece saying something like, "From 1982 to 2011 only 52 movies received an A+ CinemaScore grade." VictorD7 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with the film.com link is that it does not talk about this film. It refers mainly to the Jackie Robinson biopic 42. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking you, as you've already made your opinion known, but since you're here I'll point out that the source does cover a topic relevant to this article, specifically the rarity of an A+ CinemaScore grade. I'm not aware of any policy stating that every source used has to directly mention the article title. Did you similarly object to Specifico's use of this CinemaScore methodology source, which obviously doesn't mention this movie? VictorD7 (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate an answer to the above question if you have an opinion, Scoobydunk. VictorD7 (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What are WP standards for referencing awards like oscars, pulitzers, peabody, nobel, and the like? It should follow the same standards and if those awards aren't similarly referred to as "rare" or "prestigious" then this one shouldn't be either.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I get the connection to the awards thing. Sources do routinely describe an A+ grade as "rare", with several explaining precisely how rare, so I'm wondering if you'd oppose such a mention. The opposition has been on the grounds that the articles both directly mentioning this movie and "rare" are unacceptable to use (of course), and that the undeniably reliable sources describing it as "rare" are talking about the grade generally, and don't specifically mention this movie. Is it your position that every source on this page has to directly mention this film, or can we use sources that cover noteworthy subtopics without directly mentioning the film, like the CinemaScore methodology source Spec added? VictorD7 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Vic my man: The reference to cinemascore's website explains some of the methodology used to derive the grade, and so it relates directly to the text to which the citation was appended. If you find RS which states this film America: etc. got a "rare" grade, then have at it and use whatever statements are appropriate here. Personally I suggest you keep looking for such a source,  SPECIFICO  talk  18:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you used it to expand the sentence you attached the source to. Which is fine since it's a topic pertinent to the article, just as citing any one of the countless sources that call an A+ grade "rare" would be fine (including the The Blaze piece directly commenting on this movie) without the indefensible double standard VictorD7 (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Questionable sources
Citations of a questionable nature should not be used in Wikipedia. One of the worst offenders is World Net Daily which is completely untrustworthy as shown by Politifact at. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Politifact is itself a partisan source, no more reliable than WND (or CBS, the NY Times, the New Republic, CNN, NBC, etc.), but I added the Box Office Mojo source confirming the ranking, so hopefully that addresses any lingering concerns you have. VictorD7 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I challenge your claim that Politifact is a partisan source because it is a service of the Tampa Bay Times which is a bonafied journalistic source. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe newspapers can exhibit partisan bias than I'm not sure we have much basis for rational discussion. The WND story is factually correct, as I proved, so you have no legitimate basis for deleting it. Even your Politifact page only shows two allegedly (in their opinion) false statements by WND. They've got four "Pants on Fire" examples for MSNBC. As for pure, general credibility, all the sources I listed above are "bona fide journalistic source(s)" too, and yet they've been caught in numerous journalistic scandals, including (but not limited to)...


 * NY Times - Reporter Jayson Blair fraudulently making up stories
 * New Republic - Writer Stephen Glass fraudulently making up stories
 * CBS - Dan Rather using a forged memo on the eve of a presidential election to try and swing the result
 * NBC - Dateline rigging cars to explode in a fraudulent consumer reports investigation; producers editing George Zimmerman's 911 call with outrageous dishonesty to make him look racist
 * CNN - Tailwind scandal where network leveled debunked charges against US military in Vietnam; Chief News Executive Eason Jordan confessing in 2003 that CNN had buried atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein in exchange for the network getting greater access, a deal that held for years.
 * I could go on and on. The point, however, is that all of these sources, despite the habitual bias, are generally reliable for the hard facts they contain, as a very prominent site like WND is. Whether a source is reliable or not is determined on a case by case basis contingent on what it's being used for. Wikipedia doesn't declare sources "unreliable" or "reliable" across the board. It depends on context. Here, the WND piece was verifiably accurate and you presented no legitimate reason for removing it. VictorD7 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can't tell the difference between a Pulitzer prize winning outfit like Politifact from an admitted conservative website like world net daily, you have no business being on Wikipedia. WND is famous for pushing the birther movement, even though that has been debunked a thousand times over.  It featured a six-part series claiming (falsely) that soybean consumption causes homosexuality and promoted Scott Lively’s vile opus The Pink Swastika, which says that gays were behind the Holocaust. It has identified the first “leftist” as Satan, and declared that Muslims have a “20-point plan for conquering the United States by 2020.” It has warned of secret plans to create a North American Union, advised readers to invest all their assets in gold, and promoted myriad, if conflicting, theories about when and how the world will end.  Yet conservatives like you say it should be given the exact same credentials as real news networks and newspapers, because you only care that they say things that you agree with, whether they make it up or not.SemDem (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * These arguments about what such-and-such source said about this-or-that in other situations ignore the guidance of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I think the NYT has received a few Pulletzers too, but look at some of its problems in the past. They are listed at New York Times. WP says there are 3 components or aspects to a source: piece, creator, and publisher. (See: RS.) I'd venture that every source has tarnishes on its reputation. Let's consider how these sources are to be used in this article, and do so in context. – S. Rich (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, we'll use left-wing blogs, right-wing blogs, Weekly World News, the Onion and your trash tabloid. None of the real news outlets mentioned would ever do a series on soybeans making people gay, otherwise they would be relegated to WND status. However, your argument is there is no way to distinguish between a reputable, journalistic news source and garbage, so we should give the same weight to every piece regardless of the source. Can't see anything wrong with that.SemDem (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you split my post in half below, a basic Talk Page rule violation I'm about to fix, perhaps you're the one who doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I couldn't care less about you not liking WND (an opinion/news site with diverse article types), or all the other conservative outlets you no doubt despise, but you missed the whole point of this discussion. It was about whether a source like WND could be used at all, (clearly it can be, especially if the segment is factually verified and undisputed, or it's just giving its own opinion), not whether we should treat it as being as generally reliable for facts as the paper of Jayson Blair and Walter Duranty, who lied to cover up Stalin's atrocities but was awarded a Pulitzer Prize (lol!). VictorD7 (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not count commentators on media sources, I am referring to the media source itself. With MSNBC, there was just one rating which was 'pants on fire' which is shown at .  You can see all of them at  which shows none for the New York Times or New Republic, none for CBS or CNN. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, these four pants on fire rated claims are all from MSNBC hosts. WND only received one "pants on fire" rating according to your own link, btw. The lack of attention to most liberal sources, despite the well documented scandals I just laid out, underscores Politifact's partisan bias. But my point was that none of this means MSNBC or WND can't be used as Wikipedia sources, especially if the material they're being used to source is verifiable and undisputed, which was the case with WND this time.


 * Also, why did you revert my removal of a frivolous POV source someone placed in the lede? We don't need a snarky, politically slanted review to source a short sentence telling us who the director and producer are. If you feel a source is required, it would be easy to use a different one better suited to the task. Remember, NPOV is policy. It seems inconsistent for you to stridently oppose using an article in the body that's actually performing a useful task as a writeup on the specific historical ranking segment in the text, while equally stridently opposing the removal of an unnecessary biased sourced in the lede.  VictorD7 (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because you made an editing error which shows up in red in the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That just happened because I didn't see that the source had been manually added to the reference list at the bottom of the page. That's unusual, and only two sources here are so listed. Would you object to me removing and/or replacing the source provided that I correct that next time? VictorD7 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)