Talk:Insatiable (TV series)

Credits / Episode counts
The cast listings on IMDb are incomplete and unreliable. For instance, Michael Ian Black is only credited for episode 7, although he appears in at least three more (6, 8, and 9). Please be careful when using it as a source. DES (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Instatiable editing
I'm trying to make the reception section for the show less biased because so far it is 90% about the negative reviews without acknowledging the fact that there have been positive audience and CRITIC reviews. I love the show and I am not a robot. I corrected the website that analyzed the Rotten Tomatoes audience scores to IntoMore.com because it's that website not the Daily Dot that did the analyzing. The Daily Dot is just reporting on their analysis. It's ridiculous that you're threatening me with being blocked because I'm trying to make this website more unbiased and accurate. If you don't believe me look at the Daily Dot article a little closer because they clearly thank IntoMore.com for their information. And that article doesn't take into account the FACT that IMDb has thousands of positive reviews for the show left by reviewers who are not "suspect at best." Also, just because the ratings were made by people with new accounts doesn't automatically "indicate" that they are bots because plenty of people make new accounts to rate things that they really enjoy, especially if that show is being shat on because it isn't perfectly PC. The vast majority of the negative reviews are coming from people who didn't even watch the show in entirety or if they did, they were offended because it wasn't afraid of discussing taboo topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.95.22 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could make those changes and if you don't hate the people who actually like the show too much, could include some positive reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.95.22 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi. You replaced "the daily dot" with IntoMore.com without providing any reliable source. To me, it looked like you were promoting/spamming that website. If not, kindly provide the source which states the website IntoMore.com analyzed Rotten Tomatoes profiles, the source being other than intomore itself; and I will update the article. If you have more questions/doubts, please feel free to ask. — usernamekiran (talk)  17:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, my question is can you please include these positive reviews because the show is actually being well-received by a lot of people and some critics: http://theweeklyspoon.com/television/netflixs-insatiable-the-world-is-offended-by-everything/ https://readysteadycut.com/2018/08/08/insatiable-season-1-netflix-review/ http://www.vulture.com/2018/08/insatiable-netflix-fat-shaming-controversy.html http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/features/969519-insatiable-season-1-recap https://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2018/08/insatiable_netflix.html https://www.teenvogue.com/story/debby-ryan-interview-insatiable-mental-health — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.95.22 (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * hi. You already look familiar with the article. Would you take a look at the current state of reception section, please? It has been edited in last couple of days. Thanks. — usernamekiran (talk)  06:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia pointedly does not use site user ratings, such as those found in the audience scores sections on Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, etc. In addition to the possibility/likelihood of vote manipulation by supporters and/or detractors, such score are inherently biased. IMDb users tend to be younger, more affluent, have more formal education (relative to their age) and more male than the general public. Whittle that pool down to the subset who have cable TV in the United States and are interested in a show with a Disney starlet and you have a very unrepresentative sample. It would be like collecting opinions on the new superhero movie inside a comic book shop in suburban New Jersey, rather than at a golf course in Ireland or a jazz club in Singapore. That the blog on NME seems to swallow those scores whole does nothing to redeem them. While the "INTO" article delves into this, I don't see any indication that it's a reliable source either. Its about page gives no indication of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, editorial oversight, etc. The whole section needs to go.

Yes, the section should be 90% negative. 90% of reviews (per Rotten Tomatoes) have been negative. "Balancing out" the negative and positive reviews creates a false balance. If the news has a report on NASA's new satellite, a false balance would have them spend half of their time on the subject discussing the small number of flat Earthers who believe everything NASA reports is a hoax. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Quick question, do critics themselves not tend to be more affluent, have more formal education (relative to their age) and more male than the general public? Its an obvious double standard to claim IMDB users are not diverse when advocating 100% reliance on the opinion of top tier media. To me, there is inherently a problem with not allowing any measure of user/audience reception on a netflix show that does not have public TV ratings or public Box office numbers. The result is a section that relies entirely on the views of the smallest cross section of society and ignores what viewers may think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marccooper (talk • contribs) 13:04, September 2, 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not claiming IMDb users are not representative of the general population. I am claiming it is an established fact, repeatedly re-affirmed by Wikipedia and IMDb. I would consider claims to the contrary to be extraordinary. Around the world and, to a lesser extent, in the U.S., Internet users are more affluent, better educated, disproportionately male and disproportionately non-Latinx while compared to the general population. When looking at movie sites in general and IMDb in particular, this effect is exaggerated.


 * I am pointedly not saying TV critics are a representative sample of the population. Heck, this show's audience skews young. The critics reviewing the show probably are younger than most critics, but older than the show's audience. Critics are not expected to report whether they would enjoy the show, they are expected to report whether they would expect the people reading their publication would enjoy the show. My father-in-law is close to 90 years old. This show, and the publications that review it, are not aimed at him. Critics who consider whether an octogenarian would enjoy this show would be quickly fired. AARP did not screen this show; it will not show up in any of their annual awards. Refinery29 did review the show. (AARP is a special interest group for those over age 50. Refinery29 is "focused on young women".) If those professional critics are doing their jobs (and want to keep them), they have the expected audience in mind. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Reception
This article's reception section reads like spam for competing shows and people shorting Netflix stock. Only negative reviews are highlighted although eloquent positive reviews from credible sources exist such as  On IMDB, metacritic, and rottentomatoes actual audience / users are giving the show very positive ratings but these are ignored. In the talk section, users who enjoy the show are written off with crude hurtful stereotypes about how they must be 18 year old boys who liked disney shows and just want to see skin. I have heard there may be some policy about not citing user reviews but this is very questionable especially for a netflix show that does not have public tv ratings or box office numbers. How is anyone supposed to keep critics in check if many many users disagree. If the 10,000+ imdb users who rate this show above average are wrong, how do we know Shawshank Redemption and Godfather are any good? If wikipedia continues to hide user responses and only include one side of the reception, letting activists with agendas control the reception of a show they dislike, I will stop relying on wikipedia's reception sections for anything. I strongly feel that rather than fat-shaming as accused by critics, critics are essentially slut-shaming this show. It has a female lead and female creator, and many not so woke critics are furious that it explores themes of nihilism as social commentary that male-male shows are allowed to explore, such as unapologetic violence (dexter, fight club), offensive humor (seinfeld, curb), and over the top gay innuendo (arrested development, ie tobias). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marccooper (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, site users at various pages have given it high marks. Wikipedia doe not use those reviews because they are neither representative samples nor professional critics (please see the discussion immediately before this). Whether the project is a blockbuster film playing in every theater around the world or a show carried solely on a public access channel in a remote village is immaterial. This is true across the project and I see no reason why this show is the exception to the rule. I am not writing off those site users as anything other than anonymous site users. We have seen films deluged with negative reviews before they were released based on social media campaigns, only to be deluged with positive reviews after the director begged his fans to do so. We've had films receiving outstanding remarks from first day ticket buyers when it turned out that 90% of first day sales were paid for by the studio.


 * Beyond the inescapable possibility of vote stacking, self-selection bias is a very real problem. People who care one way or another about a question are more likely to respond to the question. This is generally referred to as a "SLOP" (self-selected listener opinion poll, based on it first being found in radio listener polls). While you would expect, for example, products on internet sites to score as average more often than poor and excellent combined, people who really like or really dislike a product are more likely to bother to rate it. Further, those who feel a product is about average tend to give better than average marks (say 3.5 stars out of 5, rather than the middle score of 2.5).


 * Wikipedia's guidelines say not to use them. Social science say they are not reliable. To include audience ratings, you will need to find independent reliable sources (not blogs or other self-published sources) to include the information. Beyond that, you would need to establish a consensus to ignore the guidelines for this article (but not tens of thousands of others, which is unlikely) or work to change the guidelines (which, in this case, is extraordinarily unlikely).


 * Your opinions of other shows, your analysis of critics as a group and your rejection of their opinions are not relevant here. Wikipedia's guidelines specify that we use reviews from professional critics (and Rotten Tomatoes is singled out as an excellent source for these opinions) and that we report these opinions with weight relative to their appearance in the published reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhDv2.0 (talk • contribs) 13:29, September 2, 2018 (UTC)

Ok so if we cannot look at users opinions lets look at the bias of the reviews that were included. The show has 23% and 11% positive reviews, an average of 17% positive, about one in six. Proportional unbiased representation of critics views could then include 5 negative reviews and 1 positive review, such as the slate review I cited. Instead the reception lists 5 negative 'reviews' and 0 positive reviews, which is a bias toward throwing out the minority, like say if you did not let a certain racial minority that was 17% of the population vote. Even if only 2 negative reviews were included, it would be less biased to add one positive review than not. I say that because, and this is math so I know that might not persuade some, but if the actual positive rate is 17%, and you portray either 2 negative and 0 positive or 2 negative and one positive, well 33.3% is slightly closer to 17% than 0% is, 33.3% is less biased. Now, I say 5 negative 'reviews' because 3 seem to be actual entertainment critics and 2 seem to be activists concerned about social issue controversies, a professor who writes academically about body issues and some podcasters on body issues. Since these are not entertainment critics, and they are making moral judgements about the show not its entertainment value, I feel like these should be in a section under Controversies not reception. I suppose controversy is a type of reception, but its not whats being gauged on critical review aggregators, so it cannot represent general reception, and if its included it would seem to deserve an equal effort counter argument. Also, one of these negative articles seems to me to be the product of a lazy analysis that did not delve far into the season, as there is later a character named Dee who enters pageants and is proud of her larger body. So, I would say that to remove bias it would be fair to move the two non-critic social-issue responses to a controversy section, replace them with two more negative reviews, and include one positive review such as the slate review. I think that is reasonable. Look, I was heavy in high school, I lived in a mobile home, I lived in the south, I lost weight, I got a masters degree, and I like this show. That is not relevent I am sure, but what is relevent is if whoever has assembled the wikipedia article on this show hates the show and has cherry picked the entire article to forcefully exclude any positives and to pick the most negative opinions possible. If you can look yourself in the eyes and say the editing is completely neutral and your role is neutral good for you. You would have good confirmation hearings for the supreme court aswell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.224.4 (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You are mixing apples and orangutans. You point to percentages of critics in the critical review section and propose removing commentary from non-critics discussing other issues as being over-representation of negative reviews by critics. The "Controversy" section is not related to critical reception.


 * Rotten Tomatoes reports that 11% of their pool of critics gave positive reviews. We do not know if the negative reviews were equivalent to Fs or merely C-s. We do not know if the positives were A+s or C+s. Lots of Fs and a few C+s looks the same as lots of C-s and a few A's on RT. Either way, it's a bad to dismal score.


 * Metacritic uses an entirely different method of aggregating their pool of critics. Oversimplification: If all 14 of their critics gave the show 23 out of 100, they would report the same 23/100 as they would if 4 critics gave scores of 80 and 10 gave zeros. You cannot aggregate aggregations. Either way, it's a dismal score.


 * What we do know that most of the reviews were negative, likely very much so. Rotten Tomatoes says that critics reported "Broad stereotypes, clumsy social commentary, and a failed attempt at wokeness make Insatiable hard to swallow." We know an actress cited listening to a podcast as preparation for the show. We know said podcast said she may have listened but did not hear.


 * The "Controversy" section is four sentences: A major source reported on a petition. The creator defended the show. An actress in the show defended it. We updated the petition count. I have trouble finding a [[WP:WEIGHT] issue there. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Digging down further into the Rotten Tomato reviews, if we filter to only Top Critics, the rating improves to 20% positive. Reviewers from Slate, New Yorker, and CNN enjoyed it. I think that shows there is another side to the story to tell. Maybe that side is only 20% of the story, but it exists. What we do know is that some serious thoughtful people liked the show, and there is no use to pretending they do not exist. You can argue that its 20% C's and 80 F's and I can argue its 20% A's and 80% D's but neither of us can prove that, fact is some people like it. Since you like all your own theories, I would theorize an explanation for why top critics like this shows better than the riff raff second tier critics from yahoo Australia or whatevs. I would say that many of these riff raff would never even have reviewed this show, except they saw negative reviews from others, and saw an opportunity to join the ranks of social justice warriors by watching 5 minutes and then writing a scathing yet woke review about how its all fat shaming blah blah blah despite that it depicts overweight characters as happier than their skinny counterparts. As to the podcast commentary, I do not dispute that it was in fact commented on a podcast, I dispute that an actress listening to a podcast and that podcast saying they think the show failed to meet their social and political ideals is something that belongs in the reception section. Its politics. Its contoversy. You say it like a 'fact' that she 'did not hear' the podcasters important social voices, but really its just a difference of opinion, a disagreement about how it is politically correct or not to portray a social issue. The entire wikipedia entry for this show just strikes me as a hatchett job. The summary is like 2 sentences, the plot description is like 2 sentences, and the reception section is 5 paragraphs about how this show is so super evil its the most evil bad terrible show of all times. There is no way this is the product of a neutral unbiased process. The show is edgy, it offends a lot of people, some people like it, many hate or don't get it. But its not fair to pile on and depict that nobody likes it and cherry pick the harshest most scathing lines from paragraphs of sources while citing none of the reviews that would defend it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marccooper (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * We do not filter by "Top Critics". Please see Manual_of_Style/Film.


 * I am not particularly interested in whether you feel some of the critics selected for inclusion by RT are "riff raff". My "theories" are meant only to demonstrate that your aggregation of aggregations is mathematically nonsensical.


 * You theories as to why critic X hated it and critic Y thought it was the bee's knees is your theory and has no bearing here.


 * Your new reason for wanting to exclude the podcast is that it is "politics". No, Ryan cited the podcast as her preparation for the show. The podcast has a reasonable right to respond to that. A journal article citing my work in a way antithetical to my stated findings will certainly receive a response from me. Ryan said she learned something from a source, that source said she missed the point. That is entirely relevant. Numerous independent and significant reliable sources picked up on Ryan and Milano defending the show from the backlash. Multiple sources covered the podcast's statement and the stars' responses.


 * We have one, brief summary of the article as the lead, followed by a brief summary of the premise and 10 paragraphs of episode summaries, one paragraph of controversy and 5 paragraphs of reception. The sections on production, release and marketing are brief, but there isn't much more in the sources.


 * The show is not "evil". In all likelihood it is amoral in most respects. That said, 90% of Rotten Tomatoes' critics did not like the show and Metacritic's critics as a whole thought very poorly of the show. Those are objective facts. That you disagree with the critics seems to also be a fact, though not one that belongs in a Wikipedia article.


 * If the editors of this article conspired to make the show look bad, it is a conspiracy that goes well beyond Wikipedia to include Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, NBC and a host of others. (The Metacritic reviews, BTW are 70, 50, 30, 30, 20, 20, 20, 20, 16, 10, 10, 0, 0. In my classes, that's one very weak C and 12 F's.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)