Talk:Collateral Beauty

"Summarizing" vs. synthesis
This edit restores the claim that "Collateral Beauty received negative reviews from critics", based on the idea that "Not synthesis but summarizing what Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes say. Most film articles do this."

For openers, let's dispense with what "most film articles" do. Yes, some film articles do this. Others do not. Some of those articles of each type might be among the best that we have. Some might be the worst. I have no interest in what "everybody" else is supposedly doing.

Yes, we summarize. If a source says that "Jim is 6 ft 4 and weights 220 pounds. He had bulging muscles and wears a constant sneer on his face. His attitude seems to be to break bones first and ask questions later. All of this is augmented by his reputation to destroy anything and anyone who gets in his way. All of this intimidates many into giving him his way." We might summarize that as "Jim is big and intimidating."

If, however, that material came from more than one source (rather than "a source"), it would be both a summary and synthesis.

We can say what RT reports. We can say what Meta reports. We do both of these. To combine these two sources together to say something new is synthesis.

Taken another way: If your statement is obviously what RT and Meta say, you are not adding anything that isn't already obvious and your addition is pointless. If, OTOH, your statement adds something, that something is unsourced. Summarizing is subtraction: taking away details to leave the main point(s). Synthesis is addition: combining pieces from more than one place to make something new. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The previous version of the article summarized the critical consensus to say that the film had been panned. The film was a turkey and got many severe reviews. I thought this was a fair summary of the the critical response. An editor tried to add a user voted web poll to say nicer things about the film but these are very unreliable and not acceptable but taking the editor in goodfaith and considering the policy of trying to keep a Neutral Point of View I reverted the bad edits then tried to rephrase the existing text to avoid hyperbole and say that the film received negative reviews rather than saying it was critically panned. I felt this was in keeping with many existing wikipedia film articles do and I thought it was a fair summary of RT and MC without hyperbole.
 * You seem to reject summarizing. Many existing article do this. Maybe they're wrong. I'd take your reverts more seriously if you hadn't restored an edit that included a user voted web poll, a massively unreliable source. You did at least not restore that deeply flawed edit again later but I find it very difficult to take you seriously since you restored it even once. Then again you probably don't want to take an anonymous IP Editor seriously. I understand that urge but Wikipedia claims to support open anonymous editing and I edit as an IP and want that policy to be honest and true instead of an instant excuse to revert edits without any explanation.
 * Articles are supposed to summarize their contents. The introduction of an article is allowed to summarize the article without being expected to repeat all the references: WP:LEAD. This isn't new and there are different ways of doing things but your edits seems severe and very quick to delete things. I understand your suggestion that perhaps the figures from the sources should stand alone but instead of asserting your opinion it would be better to go to WP:MOSFILM and get some agreement from other editors if you want to do something different from what many existing film articles already do, and there's a decent chance other editors might agree with you. I'm just trying to keep my edits consistent with WP:MOSFILM and what existing film articles already do.
 * Some articles choose to introduce the critical response section with a sentence summarizing the reaction from critics. Many articles do this. Over times editors have come to accept that hyperbole is a problem and in most cases only say if a film received a positive, mixed, or negative response, based on what aggregators such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic have said. In good articles and only in rare cases where other reliable direct sources have summarized the critical response do some articles go so far as to say a film was panned or highly praised. I was reverting to remove the very unreliable reference to user web polls. Then I was trying to make the phrase more neutral and as close as possible to what the sources actually said. So while I understand your changes I think they are out of keeping with the consensus and inconsistent with past style and think you should engage with WP:MOSFILM before making the kind of deletes you have been making across several film articles.
 * Conversely I am pessimistic about Wikipedia and you can pretty much do what you like since you seem more willing to revert and change many articles and spend time arguing about what the consensus might be, but I would still encourage you to talk with WP:MOSFILM and at least try to get other editors to go along with the way you like to do things. I'd be okay if film articles were at least a bit more consistent. -- 109.77.219.15 (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Three things to dispense with before getting to the point: 1) Yes, my initial revert inadvertantly restored user-generated RT scores. You are certainly correct that those have no place here. 2) That you are editing anonymously is not relevant here. 3) Yes, other articles exist. We are discussing this article.
 * I am not rejecting summarizing. I am rejecting combining the scores from RT and Meta to create a new statement that the sources do not directly state. This is policy: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." WP:SYN
 * RT gives raw numbers. Meta gives raw numbers and a summary of the reviews they included. Your preferred statement says that "reviews" were "negative". Both sources show that some reviews were, in their systems, "negative" and a smaller number were "positive". The guideline Manual_of_Style/Film says that the "overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources". It also states that "Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews". The article does this without the disputed sentence, which does not cite statistics. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

While I still disagree with your interpretation of policy, it's moot since someone added a direct source saying the film was panned. That deadline article mentions that the Collateral Beauty polled well "over 90% in two polls and an 81% definite recommend" and if anyone has sources which say more about these polls it might be interesting to include them. Maybe they are "PostTrak, CinemaScore, NPD" that the writer mentions towards the end of the article? I guess the are polls paid for by the studios but I'd want to have a bit more before using them to explore the audience response. It does make the interesting point that despite the critics saying a film is terrible there is still the possibility that it might give the target audience what they are expecting and want from it. There might be potential to expand the reception with more information when the dust settles. -- 109.79.146.209 (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)