Talk:List of films voted the best/Archive 5

Aliens
Can we possibly add Aliens to the action portion of the list? Entertainment Weekly placed it at #42 on its list of the 100 greatest films of all-time. I think it would make a great addition!

Ebert did not say that Citizen Kane was the best film ever
Roger Ebert on the Audio commentary for the concept art gallery (I think) on the Australian DVD release, something akin to "I think it's a truly great, not necessarily the best film ever, that would probably be "Raging Bull" or something else", this makes the description of "Kane"'s acclaim in this article slightly exagerated, so could someone please track a citable source for this (with the exact quote and if possible a recording of the commentary) so that this can be correctedAKLR 10:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, if we base what Roger Ebert considers the greatest film ever made on his [vote] for the 2002 Sight and Sound poll, it would indicate that Roger Ebert considers Aguirre, Wrath of God the greatest film ever made. --68.198.88.39 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find a citation stating that Roger Ebert considered Citizen Kane to be the best film ever. There are multiple citations of him saying it is his favorite film, not necessarily the best. If anyone can find something, return it to the article.LordPerson 02:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Epic
Is Epic really a genre? Sherzo 04:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not. It isn't listed in our article about film genres.  Rather than remove the "Epic" section, I'd prefer to come up with a wording that includes "epic".  --Sam uel Wan t man 07:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe IMDb has Lawrence of Arabia categorized under 'Adventure', which isn't also included on here yet. Perhaps a good idea? 81.204.124.148 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comedy
Comedy is incredibly skewed to the American perspective. I am sure that there are non-american non-hollywood comedies that have been notably considered the greatest ever.128.101.70.96 17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wonderous! Cite one.--Happylobster 18:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah like Dr. Strangelove or Monty Python's Life of Brian, oh wait a second their already on the list User:AKR619

Major edit
Looking over the article, there is a major problem. Many of the citations for genre or nationality are in a sense original research because they are the result of combining two or more facts and drawing a conclusion about it. For example, take the "Musical" section:


 * Lage Raho Munnabhai is the highest rated musical on IMDb and the only Indian movie to hold a #1 spot.
 * The voters at IMDb were not selecting their favorite musical when they were rating pictures. The IMDb list is the highest overall rating of the films that happen to be labeled with the genre "musical".  I don't think A Night at the Opera is rated highly because of the music!  However, it is one of the highest rated musicals at the IMDb.  I have no idea if Lage Raho Munnabhai has the same problem.  Another example of this is The Graduate's listing as a high rated comedy.


 * Singin' in the Rain is the second highest rated movie musical at the IMDb, and the highest musical in the IMDb Top 250. It is also the highest ranked musical at the 2002 Sight and Sound poll.
 * This film is often cited as being the "best musical", but the citations here have the same problem. None of these citations are polls about being the best musical.


 * The Wizard of Oz is the highest ranked musical on AFI's list of the 100 best American films. (see also: Fantasy)
 * Same problem.


 * Grease was voted the greatest musical by viewers of Channel 4 in 2003.
 * This is a good citation because viewers were choosing the "greatest musical". It suffers from being the opinion of a small population of film watchers.


 * West Side Story is the winner of the most Academy Awards of any movie musical, 10.
 * Academy Awards should probably not be a measure of film genres for the same reason. It also seems unreasonable to cite this for films from specific countries because Oscars will be won by films that appeal to the Academy members and not a broad worldwide poll, or a poll from the nation in question,  which is what the guidelines we have been using state.

This means that the only valid cite is for Grease!! I've decided to be bold and delete all the entries that have this problem. Many of the listings I'm removing probably deserve to be returned. I hope we can find citations that do not have this problem. -- Sam uel Wan t man 07:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire section on the Academy Awards seems borderline. The paragraphs make no claims that are original research, but the only thing missing is a citation that makes a claim that being nominated for the most awards or winning the most awards makes a film "the greatest", which is implied by including the section in the article. I suspect that such a claim could probably be found, and there are probably more claims that say winning the most awards does not make the greatest film. Perhaps a paragraph with both claims and counter claims would be a good addition to the article. Either that or remove the entire section. For the time being, I've reverted the deletion of this section pending more discussion about it. -- Sam uel Wan t man 07:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * After more than 9 months there's been no discussion. I cannot justify the continued inclusion of this section without a citation that claims that winning these awards somehow makes them the "greatest of all time".  I've removed mention of the Oscar from the article. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 08:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Serenity?
You've got to be fucking kidding me. I won't delete it, but seriously, that's ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.23.119.249 (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Bull Durham
There is a citation for this film as the best sports movie. It's at the bottom of the refrences list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.106.213 (talk • contribs)

best Propoganda
not sure it should be in here as the term is subjective in Iran for instant 300 is considered propoganda. And if it is surely frank capra's Why we fight series would be consider the best of all time.
 * Find citations where these films are mentioned as being the "Greatest propaganda film". -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 08:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Reefer madness has to be somehow be worked into greatest propaganda film...no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.88.50 (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Horror/Thriller?
Horror and thriller are two different genres. It's like putting War and Epic together. Because a movie is on a list of thrilling movies doesn't make it a thriller.

I recommend keeping The Exorcist, Psycho, and Halloween as the best horror movies, while adding Jaws, while creating a thriller catagory with Vertigo, as it has three apperances on the Sights & Sounds top 10 and was 3rd on the Village Voice's top 100 of the 20 century. --Plasma Twa 2 07:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is important to only list films that have citations saying they are the best of the genre. Horror is the genre of "scary" films.  Many of the listings were cited as being the most scary (best horror film) and the most thrilling (best thriller films).  That is why the genres were combined.  Being on the list of best films does not necessarily mean that it is the best of the genre.  It may have been picked to be on the list of all best films for a multitude of reasons, not necessarily because it was the best of its genre.  To reach that conclusion would be original research.  I think Vertigo is a great movie, but not the best thriller (not that my opinion matters).  Find a citation for Jaws if you want to add it. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 08:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Shining and Texas Chain Saw Massacre

 * The Shining was voted the greatest scary movie of all time by Channel 4.
 * The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was ranked #1 on Premiere Magazine's Top Ten Greatest Horror Films of All Time.

Right now I can't find a refrence for TCSM rather than what is on it's page. But since there is a reliable source for The Shining, I think it should be added to the Horror section. --Plasma Twa 2 10:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Channel 4's list of 50 films to See Before You Die
Would this list be considered a list of the "best films" or would a citation require it to literally say, "best films". --68.198.106.213 22:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Did they say they were the best films? Is there on that they said is "the best"?  Are there any that they said were "the best" of a particular genre?  If the answers are "no", they don't belong. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 09:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Straight from Wikipedia's summary of the list: ... It consisted of a countdown of, as the name suggests, a list of 50 films recommended to see before you die, as compiled by various film critics, experts and personalities. Each film was supposed to be "chosen as a paragon of a particular genre or style"... The last part in particular is of the most interest (as I have been searching for the illusive Apocalypse Now best film citation, which happens to top this list.) On a similar note, there was also a list (I believe that it is Sight and Sound) of the best films of the past 25 years. It says "best films" but would the "25 years" be too constricting for this list (again, topped by Apocalypse Now).--68.198.106.213 22:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not yet enough of a citation. It really needs to be on point for whatever section it is included in.  I can't find any mention of how the films were ranked.  Have you seen the documentary?  And, btw, Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a citation for other Wikipedia articles, you should go back to the original sources. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 06:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, saw the documentary (not recently though). Just trying to find the best movie citation for this movie.--68.198.106.213 01:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Its a Wonderful LIfe
In 2004 the BBC TV listings magazine "Radio Times" conducted a poll into the Best Film Never to Have Won an Oscar. "It's a Wonderful Life" came second (The Shawshank Redemption (1994) was first).

Voted the #1 inspirational film of all time in AFI's "100 Years, 100 Cheers" (June 14th, 2006)

Ranked as the #1 Most Powerful Movie of All Time by the American Film Institute (2006).

why is there no mention of america greatest movie? starring its greatest actor and directed by its greatest director?

Removed recent addtions
I've removed the following:
 * Critcal acclaim for Once Upon A Time In The West has led some to declare it "the greatest Western ever made".
 * I'm not sure these are credible cites. The first is from DVDtimes which does not have an article in Wikipedia, and I don't know if it is a notable cite.  The second is from ruthlessreviews.com, but the movie is not mentioned on the linked page.
 * The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is considered by many to be European cinema's best representative of the Western genre film. It was part of Time's "100 Greatest movies of the last century" as selected by critics Richard Corliss and Richard Schickel. In addition, it is one of the few films which enjoy a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. As of 2007, the film is rated as #4 in the IMDb Top 250 List of movies and is the highest rated Western and foreign (non-American movie), based on viewers' ratings. In a 2002 Sight & Sound magazine poll, Quentin Tarantino voted The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly as his choice for the best film ever made.
 * Considered by many, perhpas, but the first link is a dead end because it leads to a source that cannot be entered without membership. Being one of 100 films on a list does not mean they picked it as the best Western.  Many films enjoy a 100% fresh rating, that doesn't mean it was reviewed as being "the best western" by those reviewers, it could be admired for other reasons.  Same problem with the IMDB #4 listing.  Inferring that the film is the "best western" because it is the highest western in a list is original research.  The films received overall ratings, not for being the best of a genre.  Quentin Tarantino is one person, and even for him, he says it is the "best film".  Perhaps he likes it for its quirky acting, directing and soundtrack.  Perhaps he thinks "The Searchers" is a better western.  We don't know, so we can't say. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 08:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

New ranking infered from IMDB is incorrect
The rating for a movie for the Top 250 is different than for a movie itself (in its own page). The footnote from IMDB Top 250 mentiones that only ratings from regular users are considered. There are films that have, on their page, a rating of 8 or more, but are not listed in the top 250. So the link above contains the correct ranking.

Hoop Dreams?
Shouldn't Hoop Dreams be in the "documentary" section? Rotten Tomatoes rates it higher (97%) than Bowling for Columbine (96%). - Stormwatch 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

America-centered
Ive changed the titles of this article to reflect the extreme pro-America/Hollywood bias contained within; an article about the 'best films' of all time which doesnt devote a significant chunk to European filmmakers like Herzog/Godard/Bergman/Bresson/Kieślowski/Tarkovsky is a bit silly. Theres more to cinema than Star Wars and the Godfather guys :(

GordonRoss 18:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a step in the wrong direction. If anything, we should be adding more films from other countries, not segregating them.  Besides, some of the citations are from British sources or international sources.  I'm reverting. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 09:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, we simply need to do a better job finding more international polls. - SimonP 11:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole idea of having a dedicated section for 'other countries' implies that the main article is going to be full of Hollywood junk like it is now. If the article gave proper coverage of the greatest films then you wouldnt need to have the individual country lists. We arent talking about a minor pro-America/UK bias, literally 90% of the films in the article are America/UK, whereas I imagine most people who were really into films would agree that a significant number (if not the majority) of great directors are European. 172.188.251.175 15:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Find a citation to back up the addition of all the great European films and directors. It will be most welcomed.  Without changing the layout of the page, I would also be in favor of adding language that explains why there may be an inherent bias in the films listed here.  The language could explain that citations available to English speakers will mostly be the opinions of English language reviewers and English language audiences.  However it would be original research to imply that the selection was made from only American/British films and only by Americans and Brits.  We can present the information we find, but we must be careful about how we interpret that information. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 03:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Apocalypse Now Citation
This is at the bottom of the citation list. Unfortunately, you have to keep selecting "next" until you get to number 1 (which is Apocalypse Now). Here is the link: --68.198.88.39 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Most Scary Equals Best Horror Films?
I'm not sure I agree with the criterion for determining the best horror films. Isn't there more to determining the greatness of horrror films than simply asceretaining whether or not they "scare" the audience? I think the same can be said for comedies as well: A funny movie does not necessarily make it a "good" movie.

In this case, I think this page needs to offer criteria for deciding what the greatest films are. Are we considering influences on other films, acting, originality, character and plot devlopment, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyroseed13 (talk • contribs)


 * None of the above. All we are considering is what was said in the citations that call them "the best".  If the citation says "scariest film", "best horror film", "funniest film", or "best comedy", that is what we should say as well, using the same wording. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 07:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Rocky's removal?
I am confused as to the removal of Rocky from the Sports area. The user who deleted it said that the MovieFone reference isn't enough. I don't understand why the MovieFone reference isn't enough. Whatever, this Total Film reference should make the MovieFone reference viable.(I can't find the reference on the Total Film website, sadly).LordPerson 00:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Beauty and the Beast
Someone deleted Beauty and the Beast from the animation list. He argues that "being nominated for an award is not a citation for being the best ever". As a matter of fact Beauty and the Beast was the ONLY animated picture that was nominated for a "Best Picture"-Oscar so far. This is the most important category and everybody knows that the Oscar is not just AN award but the most signficant of all film awards. I think this is a very remarkable achievement and that's why this film should also be included. Have a look at Akira for example. You might say the same thing about this film, too. Is it really the "best animated film ever" just because an (insignificant) Anime-magazine said so? In my opinion the Academy Award is more important and significant than the poll of the Anime-magazine. Remember, this is a LIST/COLLECTION of films that are considered the best ever. You simply can not tell which really is the best.90.128.0.50 00:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it, and I'm going to remove it again. Find a citation that says the being the only animated film nominated for the "Best Picture" Oscar makes Beauty the best animated film.  Otherwise, it is original research on our part to come to that conclusion.  All this article does is cite where others have have made the claim for being the greatest.  If we go beyond that, the list degenerates into a collection of everyones favorites.  -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 00:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Best Picture of the Year" and "Best Picture Ever" are two completely different things, especially when it did not even win. You may as well ask why every single Best Picture nominee isn't on here. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The requirements for making this list is having a citation from a respected place listing it as a "best film." While Beauty and the Beast was the only Animated Feature to be nominated for best picture, they did not nominate that movie because it was the greatest ever made. This is also why Silence of the Lambs is not listed as a great Horror movie. If you really want this movie to be on the list, go out and find a citation fitting the scope of the accepted citations.LordPerson 17:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

IMDB user ratings
I removed the references to IMDB user ratings as per WikiProject film guidelines. They were restored by User:Sam who said "This article is about the opinions and polls about film, not the films themselves. It doesn't make sense to remove one of the most popular internet forums for rating films.

The consensus of WikiProject Films is that IMDB user ratings are unverifiable and not a reliable source. As for the argument that this article is different because it's about opinion: every film article has a "critical reaction" style section that states opinion. The fact that this article discusses several films, rather than only one, and purely discusses opinion, does not mean that IMDB user ratings are suddenly considered reliable and suitable for inclusion. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Chris. IMDb ratings are susceptible to votestacking.  Take a look at this article, for example.  There are much better and verifiable ways to indicate that a film is the greatest ever, especially by the way of professional accolades.  At IMDb, I've seen 300 and Transformers be in the Top 250.  Such ratings are clearly dynamic.  What happens if we have a great batch of films in the next 50 years that replaces most of the items on the current list?  We need historical perspectives from reliable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting article. Clearly, the IMDB sampling is biased and not a true representation of the underlying distribution. However, I'd imagine that Rotten Tomatoes probably has a similarly biased sample (predominantly: self-selecting American males), and RT ratings are used in many articles. At least they're verifiable though. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Rotten Tomatoes has two kinds of ratings -- one for recognized critics, and one for the users. Here's a good example of possible votestacking -- 14% from critics for Hitman and 65% from users for the same film.  Rotten Tomatoes is pretty balanced as far as these go. Their webpages explain how published reviews are included (as opposed to people pressing a radio button of 10 for their favorite box office bomb). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of these concerns are relevant. This article is a survey of opinion it is NOT an article that claims that any film IS the best, only that is is cited as "the best" by others. Any survey or poll of films will have some sort of bias. Some polls are nationalistic in flavor, others reflect the bias of the specialized audience that was polled. The important thing for us it to make the citations transparent, and to weed out those in which are blatantly ridiculous (like one persons' personal opinions posted on their website). I don't think it is our job to "independently verify" the results of the polls undertaken by outside organizations. If so, we might have to re-write Al Gore's article and declare him the winner of the 2000 US presidential election. This article does not claim that "The Godfather" IS the best rated film of all time, it just states the IMDB came to this conclusion based on their voting system (correct or not). Each poll will have its own flaws. The way to deal with this is to add more polls to the article. This article is titled "Films CONSIDERED the greatest ever", and not "The greatest films ever". There is a difference. I'm reverting back. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 06:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that IMDB should stay, its a very large user poll. So long as it is properly identified. I don't think a Wikiproject guideline should trump basic Wikipedia reliable sources guidelines. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that exactly the point though? IMDB user ratings are not a reliable source. This article is no exception: this article should not trump basic Wikipedia reliable sources guidelines. IMDB user ratings are not a reliable source. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Any survey or poll of films will have some sort of bias". Sam, reputable organisations have developed various techniques (such as random sampling) to eliminate bias. IMDB is not a reputable surveying or polling organisation - they do not sample randomly, or have any kind of statistical validity. More importantly, their sampling is unverifiable - survey/polling organisations always describe their methodology and you are free to repeat the survey yourself. This is not possible with IMDB - the surveys there are self-selecting, anonymous, and more importantly to Wikipedia, completely unverifiable.
 * Maybe you could explain, having read the Wikiproject discussion, exactly why you think this article is completely different to the "critical reception" section of every other film article, and should therefore be allowed to ignore WP:RS and WP:Verifiable? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All this article does is report that the IMDB lists some films as being the highest on their list. This can be verified by looking at their web-site.  the article does not make any claims as to the validity of the IMDB's rating being representative of anything other than that.  There is no way that we can verify the results of any internet poll or other voting system.  Even the AFI's lists are filled with unknowns.  For instance, the voters in those polls were asked to select films from a larger list that had already been culled.  That culling process has not been revealed anywhere (as far as I'm aware).


 * I've changed the wording slightly of the section dealing with the IMDB, so that it is a little clearer that the list does not imply anything more than reporting what the IMDB says. It is a rather simple thing to verify that "The Godfather tops the IMDB list of best films." To do so, you just follow the citations to the list.  There is also a wikilink to the section of the IMDB article that discusses their rating system.  I would not be adverse to adding additional language that makes it clearer.  I don't think anyone is claiming that we should not list these films because we have not cited a third party source's reporting of the IMDB result.  That would be absurd.


 * I don't think we need to extend the meaning of verifiability beyond that. If so, we would not be able to write that "the Florida Secretary of State declared that George W. Bush was the victor in the 2000 election".  We do not have to verify that she was correct, only that she made the declaration.  We can report her claim and the challenges to her claim.  This is no different than saying "the IMDB declared that The Godfather is the highest rated film in their top 250 ratings list".  This article does not claim anything about which films ARE the best.  It only reports which films OTHERS have called the best.  This is made clear in the first paragraph.  If it is not clear, please help make it clearer.


 * All that said, I do not disagree that the IMDB's sampling is skewed towards the tastes of young males. I think it would improve this article if each citation explained the inherent bias related to the selection process.  I'd love to see a section that found mentions from some noted film writers which included the films that are always overlooked by the general public.  There is no source that is going to have the definitive list of great films, perfectly representive of either the public or critics.  If we cull all of them because of some flaw, we'll be left with nothing.  The better approach is to include as many as possible and discuss their limitations. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For the example of The Godfather, it's not set in stone that the film will remain on top. What if one of the top ten contenders bumps it down?  How can we verifiably report that The Godfather held the top spot?  We need historical data, not citation of a constantly-changing poll. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's an example of historical data: The most beloved movie of the '90s: "So beloved in fact, that the film -- based on a Stephen King novella, "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption" -- currently ranks No. 3 (behind only "The Godfather" and "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," with which it sometimes changes places) on the Internet Movie Database Web site's user poll of the top 250 movies of all time." I'd consider that verifiable and static as reported from an independent source. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sam, we don't "discuss" the limitions of polls in an article, that would be original research. A big problem with IMDb, other than vote stacking, is the lack of representative samples they provide. The only people that vote on those polls are the people that frequent the site on a regular basis. For all we know, that could be heavily concentrated in one area, like 40% of the votes could all come from New York City. What makes IMDb's ratings better than someone elses that we have to include them? Why not include a fan website? It lacks the reliability that should accompany polls (i.e. not Wikipedia's definition of reliability, but reliability as defined by statistical data).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sam, you are basically making an argument that was already made (and rejected by consensus) in the original discussions regarding IMDB ratings. You still haven't answered the real question here - why exactly do you think this article is different to the "critical reception" section of every other film article? Do they not both cover the same thing - critical and audience reaction to films? Do you believe that IMDB ratings should be allowed in this article and no others? Or are you arguing that IMDB ratings should be allowed in the critical section of all articles? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The guideline should follow common sense (as it states at the top of the guideline page) and this article (and films considered the worst ever) should be treated differently because they're different from general articles about films. In film articles, people often insert IMDB ratings as inline references to support a rating from the standpoint of hard fact. However, this article and Worst Ever are about ratings themselves. The articles aren't called "The Best Films Ever" or "The Worst Films Ever", they have that nice word "considered" in there which tells us all we're doing is showing a broad spectrum of opinion, and then providing evidence to verify the opinion itself. The opinions are being verified, not the fact that these films are awesome or awful. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "In film articles, people often insert IMDB ratings as inline references to support a rating from the standpoint of hard fact." - Strawman argument. You can't use IMDB references at all in film articles. You can't even say "IMDB users voted it x" in the critical reception section. Maybe some editors did try to use ratings to support a hard fact, but that is not the reason that ratings are prohibited.
 * "The opinions are being verified" - No, they aren't, that's the point. You have no way of knowing whether what IMDB says is true; it's not a reliable source, it's not a reputable surveying organisation. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why won't the link in External links suffice? The rankings are only one link away from readers interested in them. --Phirazo 04:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ with all of the objections above to the IMDB:
 * "You have no way of knowing wheter what the IMDB says is true". Truth is not the issue.  We are not stating that the Godfather is the most popular film, only that the IMDB has said that their poll, using their methods, lists it on top.  That is easily verified.
 * "We need historical data, not citation of a constantly-changing poll." Who says that everything in an article must be this rigid? Many articles report changing information.  This article clearly says "as of..." in some cases, and the information here quickly changes whenever the IMDB results change.
 * "You can't use IMDB references at all in film articles". IMDB mentions have been "rejected by consensus."  The guidelines, and the discussions about them relate to using the IMDB in "critical reception" sections about individual films.  Extending that to mean that an IMDB rating cannot be mentioned in ANY article is a stretch that was not discussed (as far as I can tell).  I can see a value to limiting posting the IMDB numbers in almost all articles about individual films.  I think it is wrong to ban that information from every film article.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that "The Godfather tops the IMDB list, and has done so for many years."  It would be wrong if the information was presented as a citation to back up the claim that "The Godfather is the best film ever made."  Making such a claim is wrong because it is using opinion to back up a statement presented as a fact.  There is nothing wrong with citing an opinion clearly presented as an opinion.  That is the basis for this entire article.
 * "A big problem with IMDb, other than vote stacking, is the lack of representative samples they provide." All the popular polls in this article have limited populations (readers of a newspaper or magazine, people who responded on-line, people who watched a specific TV program, etc...).  The same argument could be extended to the polls of directors and film critics.  Were ALL film critics included?  Were all directors included?  Verifiability means confirming that the statements made in an article have independent sources.  That does not mean that the reporting of opinion needs to be a perfectly performed scientifically controlled survey of everyone in the world.  Would it make sense to remove mention of "American Idol" from the bio of a performer that won that competition because the polling was limited to fans of the show and vote stacking is rampant?  That would be absurd.
 * "reputable organisations have developed various techniques (such as random sampling) to eliminate bias. " The issue for inclusion is not whether an organization is reputable in their techniques for polling.  Rather, the issue is whether the organization is notable.  If it is notable, it should be included.  If it is notable but not reputable, there can be additional information (properly sourced) that discounts the poll.
 * "We don't "discuss" the limitions of polls in an article, that would be original research." You can't have your cake and eat it too.  If there is no third party sources for the limitations of a poll, then it would be orignial research to discuss the limitation.  If there are third party sources, then they can certainly be mentioned and cited.  This happens all the time.  You can't say that something is non-reputable without backing up the claim with evidence.  If the evidence is good, it can be included in the article.  It is perfectly NPOV to say that "A says XXXX, but B says YYYY" if both claims are well cited.  This often the way that POV battles are resolved.
 * -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 00:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * IMDB is a self-published source. From WP:SPS:
 * "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." and from WP:ATT "With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely unacceptable."
 * IMDB is unverifiable. From Reliable_source_examples:
 * "Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are rarely regarded as reliable. While they are often controlled by a single party (as opposed to the distributed nature of Usenet), many still permit anonymous commentary and we have no way of verifying the identity of a poster."
 * IMDB is a primary source of statistical information. From Reliable_source_examples:
 * "Statistical data may take the form of quantitative or qualitative material, and analysis of each of these can require specialised training. Statistical data should be considered a primary source and should be avoided."
 * Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument seems to be that IMDB should be treated in the same way as a notable critic. I can understand the logic; the IMDB web site is notable, and the site provides a huge amount of information about films. The argument would be that "Critic X gave film Y a score of 5.0" is the same as "IMDB users gave film Y a score of 5.0". The verifiability problem is that "IMDB users" is unspecific, you have no idea exactly who they were, and hence can't verify that they did indeed say that. Your argument would be that it doesn't matter, because you can go to the IMDB web site and see that it says "IMDB users gave film Y a score of 5.0". But in this case IMDB would be used as a reliable source, and it isn't one. Or maybe the language is imprecise, and the exact claim is that "A survey carried out by IMDB reported that visitors to its web site gave film Y a score of 5.0". But in this case, IMDB is not notable; it is not being used as a critic, it is being used as a reference for a self-published survey, but it isn't a notable polling organisation, and the data it reported hasn't been published in a reliable source; there is no external verification or fact checking of the survey. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your statement:
 * "The issue for inclusion is not whether an organization is reputable in their techniques for polling. Rather, the issue is whether the organization is notable."
 * directly contradicts the lead paragraph of the article, which says:
 * "The criterion for inclusion in this article is that the film is considered the "greatest" in a quantitative survey".
 * Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sam, IMDb is not considered a reliable source for information, why would we use them for a polling station? Their polling is not notable in any way, it contains no representation of audiences viewing the films, and are subject to votestacking. You left a comment on another talk page that it would be like not including the Academy Awards. Sorry, that is incorrect. The Academy Awards are an established organization that uses professionals to vote and determine winners. Not the same thing in the least. Also, stop reverting the removal, as consensus to include something that goes against the Film guidelines is clearly against you. Also, you might want to read up on statistics and statistical data, because it is almost impossible to survey "every one" in any given field of study. That is the idea behind "representative sample". "Representative sample" has to do with finding a sample of people that best represents the population you are making a generalized statement about. In this case, IMDb is sample their own population and nothing more. "User" opinions are not notable to begin with, let alone the fact that they could be concentrated in one area. They don't release their statistics, and the fact that IMDb does not have historical polls, they simply constantly poll--with the newest movie getting great ratings because its new.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Most of the objections above are stretching policy to cover situations that they were not meant to cover. The WP:ATT policy was never intended to cover large popular sites visited by millions. To use it in this case is like saying that we cannot quote the New York Times because it is self published. The IMDB is not claiming to be an expert, they are not claiming that their poll is a representative sampling of the public. It is however the most notable internet film site that has compiled user ratings from thousands of visitors. That is all we are reporting here.

The IMDB polls are not posts in web forums or talkback sections. That policy is meant to keep people from using the blog-like posts of individuals. This article is not using IMDB as a source of statistical information to reach a conclusion about that the most popular film is. I too, would object to that. It is only being listed as one of many flawed surveys of the public that reached various conclusions. As long as there is no misrepresentation, that is not against any policy. I am going to modify the language of the opening paragraph to reflect the inadequacies of most of the audience surveys. I request that people with objections help with these edits to bring the article to a state where you could find it acceptable.

Frankly, I find this entire discussion disheartening. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for almost 4 years, have been an Admin for two, and have been patrolling this page for years. I've usually been the person removing cites, and I've removed dozens of IMDB citations that were questionable because of WP:OR concerns (see section above). I believe that all policies on Wikipedia are not black and white. There is usually a grey area in the middle, and I believe that if there is a grey area, you should find a way to keep things and note the possible problems. If you take the stance of removing questionable grey area things, you create more and more contentious arguments, and spend much more time arguing about content than creating content. I frankly am not interested in hanging out in a place where you have to fight a battle about every harmless piece of information. It is too cold and unfriendly to my liking. You may win this battle and perhaps loose the war by alienating large numbers of current and potential editors. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 20:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How is IMDB less reliable than say Person of the Year or American Idol or Billboard 100. All use different methodologies, and of course every poll has inherent flaws, as does every system for electing government officials. If IMDB is unreliable, why does it have an article in Wikipedia, and why does every movie article and actor article link to it? BY your definition, the New York Times is unreliable, they fired Judith Miller and Jayson Blair, and they have an errors column in every issue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "The WP:ATT policy was never intended to cover large popular sites visited by millions." Should a web site be considered a reliable source because it's popular? If you think the policy needs updating, then you should try to change it, not just interpret it in your own way.
 * "How is IMDB less reliable than say Person of the Year etc." I'd say WP:APP applies here: "Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves." I have no problem with those surveys being discussed in articles about the surveys, but if a survey isn't carried out by a reputable organisation, and has obvious statistical problems, then why should it be included in other articles?
 * "every poll has inherent flaws, as does every system for electing government officials." There are known problems with bias, sample size, etc. that professional statisticians take into account when doing their work. A huge amount of time, effort and money goes in to trying to ensure that election results are an accurate representation of what the people voted for. I'd be very worried if our elections had the statistical validity of IMDB.
 * "If IMDB is unreliable, why does it have an article in Wikipedia" Because it's notable. Notability != reliable source.
 * "BY your definition, the New York Times is unreliable,.. they have an errors column in every issue." That is exactly what makes them reliable. Does IMDB have a similar policy? Do they publish errata noting all of the bias and errors in their sampling?
 * "Frankly, I find this entire discussion disheartening." I don't think anybody here is trying to upset you. I'm sure you're made some important and valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Some other editors just have a different point of view. Don't take it to heart; at the end of the day, we're debating abstract ideas across the internet with people who we'll never meet in person. There are more important things in life. If I'd known I was going to spend so much time defending what I thought was a simple edit supported by an existing guideline to an article that I don't even care that much about, I would never have made it in the first place. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that we are not claiming that the IMDB is a reliable source of anything. They do happen to publish what is perhaps the most visited user poll of films on the internet.  That in itself makes the results notable.  Reporting what they claim, without drawing any conclusions beyond that is totally within the guidelines.  --&#x2611; Sam uelWantman 02:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Where are the reliable secondary sources invalidating the IMDB poll, you showed one that discussed the bias in the poll, but did not invalidate the poll. As we all agreed earlier, every system of polling has inherent bias and error rates. If I remember correctly the US held an election in 2000 and the difference between the two candidates in Florida was smaller than the margin of error in the count. It is original research for the Wikiproject to use their own findings to invalidate any poll. Where are your reliable secondary sources that say that IMDB doesn't make corrections to errors? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue that IMDB is a reliable source, then the onus is on you to prove that it "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The onus is not on others to disprove it. So where are your reliable secondary sources stating the IMDB polls are valid?
 * How can you justify your stance against Reliable_source_examples which clearly says "Statistical data should be considered a primary source and should be avoided."? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, there is no facts to be checked or accuracy to be confirmed other other than the prima facie claim of the results posted by the IMDB, and the IMDB's notability, which no one is challenging.
 * If you'd like you could remove the ratings column, and just have the rankings reported. Then there is no statistical data being presented, just the reporting of the IMDB's results.  There is no claim made about the accuracy of their statistics, and there is a disclaimer about the meaning to be implied by the results of all the polls mentioned. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 19:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By this logic, you could use IMDB ratings or rankings in any film article, since "there is no facts to be checked or accuracy to be confirmed other other than the prima facie claim of the results posted by the IMDB, and the IMDB's notability, which no one is challenging.". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

IMDB as a reliable source

 * Lets take one more trip on the Merry Go Round, no other polls are required to go through this requirement. All sources must be treated with the same respect, or same disrespect, unless there is a third party invalidating it. Otherwise your just using your original research as the basis to invalidate a source you have a grudge with. You are not requiring a third party validation of the methods used by Person of the Year or American Idol or Billboard 100. Whats your grudge with IMDB? This appears to be very personal. IMDB is a reliable source under editorial control, and is used by Wikipedia in every article on a movie and every article on an actor. It is more reliable than Wikipedia, which is ironic. John Stewart, I suspect got bad information from Wikipedia, via his writers, from an article on Ben Affleck. If they had consulted IMDB, they would have had the correct information, that Gone, Babt, Gone was his directorial debut. Wikipedia said it was his third film, which Stewart said on air. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Person of the Year, American Idol and Billboard 100 would present exactly the same problem if they were being used to write a People considered the greatest ever or Music considered the greatest ever article. I might also have some problem with Pregnant women considered the hottest ever, but at least you can cite and verify that one. Nobody is saying that notable but unreliable statistics shouldn't be used in articles about those statistics. What people are suggesting is that if you want to cite a source in any other article, then you should be able to show that the source in question is considered a reliable source, by third parties, for the information that you're citing.
 * "IMDB is a reliable source under editorial control, and is used by Wikipedia in every article on a movie" Err, did you read the discussion and conclusion of WikiProject Films? IMDB is not considered a reliable source, by consensus of WikiProject Films. This is not just my personal opinion. I have no grudge against IMDB, I think it's a very useful site, just not a reliable source. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The decision of the Wikiproject to invalidate IMDB polls is invalidated by your own logic. One Wikiproject is not a fair sampling of consensus across Wikipedia. And it should be pretty clear from this discussion that there is NO consensus for this. You're using stretch logic. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So, by your logic, if there is no consensus as to the reliability of a source, then you are free to use it to cite any statement in Wikipedia? Shouldn't it be the other way around - shouldn't there be consensus that a source is considered reliable before it is acceptable, rather than the other way around? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, having been directly involved in WP:CIMDB, the consensus was unanimous that IMDb could not be used for any user-based data - the only question in the original proposal was whether or not it could be used for "hard facts" such as cast and crew lists, release dates, and technical information. The resounding consensus was that in light of the poor and opaque editorial controls, it was not to be considered a reliable source in any respect. If anything, the consensus has only gotten stronger since then. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Audience Polls
20 to 1 is a show where they take an hour to rank examples of various topics. As far as I know it's just a script written by a Channel Nine employee. As such it shouldn't be in this section, possibly not even in this article. MartinSFSA (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about this show, nor how the lists are generated and found no information on their web-page. We have not been including mentions of single individuals as the prerequisite cite, so I've removed the 20 to 1 mention. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 02:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

20 to 1
There have been two references in this article to 20 to 1, which as above doesn't merit consideration as anything other than a television show which lists claimed significant items in hierarchical order. If anyone can put up an argument in favour of inclusion then please do so. If anyone knows more about its selection process which makes it notable then please share. MartinSFSA (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)