Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road/Archive 3

Critical reception
Please can editors keep WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK in mind when editing the critical reception section. The principal purpose of such a section is to state whether the film has received positive or negative reviews, and it is important that the article does this is in neutral and non-promotional language.

For instance, "rave reviews" is an informal way of saying the reviews have been very positive, so it is best just to say that. Also, please try to avoid unsupportable WP:PEACOCK phrases such as "universally positive reviews"; such a claim is not supportable, and if most of the reviews are positive then just simply say that most of the reviews have been positive! Please try to refrain from unsubstantiated qualitative assessments too: there is a huge difference between strong reviews and being "critically acclaimed"; if Mad Max ends up on the next Sight & Sound decennial critics list then maybe the "critical acclaim" epithet will be applicable; otherwise "critical acclaim" should be reserved for films such as Citizen Kane and other films that have repeatedly earned critical accolades over a sustained period of time. Betty Logan (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have several issues with the above paragraph. Films can be acclaimed without being considered one of the greatest films of all time. I really have no idea where you got that idea, but it's wildly inaccurate. Anonymous5454 (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going to say the same thing. I can understand the enthusiastic fans, as I'm pretty excited, too.  However, there's really no reason to use over-the-top phrases like "critical acclaim", "rave", or, especially, "universal acclaim".  Rotten Tomatoes already has one negative review, so "universal acclaim" is demonstrably false.  Let's just let the aggregators speak for themselves.  A film that has around 100% on both RT and MC is pretty rare, and it doesn't need peacock wording on Wikipedia to highlight this fact. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Critical acclaim" is inappropriate promotional tone. It tends to imply only one response toward the film. If the bulk of the response was positive, the usual "received generally positive critical response" language is preferable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, this just isn't true. "Critical acclaim" is a descriptive term that is accurate when describing films that received extremely positive reviews. "Acclaimed" will appear in any film textbook or encyclopedia and shouldn't be excluded from pages on wikipedai because you personally don't like it (it's also used extensively on other pages on this site; I really have no idea where this is coming from. I'm shocked that this is something people have a problem with). User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh Ok I'm new to the site so thank you for telling me how to do it properly. One question though. How come movies like Harry Potter 7 have reviews stating universal acclaim. I mean its not a classic far from it. — Preceding Broncosman12 comment added by 72.76.220.157 (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't see anything in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 when I quickly skimmed over it, but I'm sure there are many articles that do use some variation of "universal acclaim" or "rave reviews". We can't police every article, and not every editor is concerned with fixing the same issues.  So, some obvious issues remain for a very long time, even in high-profile articles.  And there are always exceptions to every rule. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply based on the heavy edits from today, it should be obvious that there are lots of editors who aren't aware of community standards, and many more who don't care about community standards. Wikipedia prefers to present content from a neutral point of view and to let the fancy "universal acclaim", "undisputed", "verdict: blockbuster" language remain where they are. And while problematic content might exist in other articles, that doesn't mean we carry this problematic content to other articles, as Ninja explains above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh Ok thank you. Where is a good place to learn how to properly edit articles. Broncosman12 (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Broncosman12
 * I think the best way to learn is to do it. It helps to check out a few short pages first, though: Core content policies, Five pillars, and Introduction to the Manual of Style.  These two are longer, but they have a lot of good advice: Writing better articles and Your first article.  The best place to ask general questions about Wikipedia and its culture is probably the tea house, and the best place to ask technical questions about how to edit Wikipedia is the help desk. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Umm Guys why is the section for critical reviews missing. All is says is This movie got postive reviews and than sources. 72.76.220.157 (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)broncosman12


 * My fault. . Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind everyone that this is an encyclopedia, and our articles have to be neutral in tone and content. That applies especially to how we describe critical reaction to a movie. If we are summarizing the reaction of critics we can use neutral, supported generalities like "mostly positive", "mixed", etc. We should NOT use value-judgment words like "acclaim" or "pan," or exaggerations like "universal", "overwhelming", etc. And of course, if we are going to quote from a particular review we must cite it with a reference. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah sorry if I might have caused a problem. I'm new to editing so I didn't know. So once again I apologize. Broncosman12 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Broncosman12 I don't know where this idea that the word "acclaim" is inappropriate on this site is coming from. That's patently ridiculous. "Acclaim" is by no means a non-neutral term. It's been widely used since this site's inception and would certainly apply to the situation regarding this film seeing as how only one critic has reviewed it negatively. I'd absolutely advocate for "acclaim" or "near-universal acclaim". Simply describing the reaction as "positive" is misguided because it doesn't address the degree to which the film was received. A film that receives a 60% on Rotten Tomatoes could be described as having received positive reviews as could a film that received a 100%. To describe them in the same fashion would be inaccurate. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this kind of language is being used by critics summarizing the reception the film has received as well. Sean O'Neal of The AV Club stated that the film received "near-uniformly rave reviews" recently. This kind of language is definitely appropriate here if it's being used by pundits from respected sources. The WP:PEACOCK guidelines only refer to situations where it is inappropriate to use such language; this is not one of those cases. If a film's reception involves 99% of critics reviewing it positively and an aggregate score of 90/100 (the site even labels that kind of score as being representative of a consensus of "universal acclaim") being generated out of the consensus gathered, "acclaim" is by no means inappropriate. It's bizarre that this is even a source of discourse. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What's appropriate for a newspaper or magazine may not necessarily be appropriate for the formal tone and neutral language of an encyclopedia. If you use a direct quotation, that may gather consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again; "acclaim" is absolutely a neutral term. However, for the sake of consensus, I think we should add the "nearly-uniformly rave reviews" quote from the article I listed above. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea where the idea that "critical acclaim" is not a neutral term is coming from, and while I strongly disagree with the couple of users who've expressed that opinion above, I think the phrase "nearly-uniformly rave reviews" from this article should be included on this page. Simply stating that the movie received positive reviews is inaccurate. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Acclaim is not "absolutely" a neutral term. Dictionary.com describes it as "to welcome or salute with shouts or sounds of joy and approval; applaud:" as opposed to "praise" which means http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/praise?s=t "the act of expressing approval or admiration; commendation; laudation."], which seems to exclude shouting and whooping and such. The beginning of your argument is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale. We're not obligated in any way to present wording that has (perhaps mistakenly) been used before, especially not with a title that is fresh out of the gates and doesn't have the the historical analysis that something like Citizen Kane might have. Will history decide that Mad Max: Fury Road received universal acclaim? Maybe. Let's wait! In simply parroting the prevailing critical attitude verbatim, we are ignoring POV concerns. If critics didn't like the film and "ball-sucking misery" became the refrain, would that be the terminology we'd be obligated to use? Nopes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course we wouldn't, because "ball-sucking misery" isn't a commonly-used description when it comes to film like "acclaim" is. Our usage of the word in no way means that we're expressing an opinion about the film; we're simply supposed to describe the critical response to the film. It would be impossible to use non-descriptive terms when describing a critical consensus, nor should we. That would make absolutely no sense. Your argument is entirely based on the idea that "acclaim" somehow fits into WP:PEACOCK, which is ridiculous considering that this film has both a 90 on Metacritic and a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes based on nearly 100 reviews. It's not hyperbole in this case; the film has received acclaim. I only bring up the fact that it's an extremely common word on this site to make it clear that your interpretation of the appropriateness of the word acclaim is by no means a popular one. Most users would not agree with you. You could even say it's a WP:FRINGE opinion. I'm confused by your "let's wait" idea. What would we be waiting for? There is already a critical consensus. You don't have to wait years to judge how critics responded to the film because it's already been documented on the sites I've cited. If the consensus was to somehow take a massive shift (despite the fact that 100 critics have already reviewed the film and I don't expect a sudden onslaught of new reviews seeing as how films received press immediately after their release), we'd edit this page accordingly. Seeing as how we're supposed to judge how critics responded to the film, "parroting" their opinions is exactly what users are supposed to list in the critical reception section. However, if you personally don't like that word, why not use the word "lauded", one you just pointed to as being neutral? Would you'd be fine with that? User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Phrases like "critical acclaim" and "lauded" are loaded terms that carry different meanings for different people, so it is better to use conservative language in instances like this. In the case of Mad Max, it is entirely factual to say the reviews have been mostly positive, or even mostly very positive (both of which accurately summarize the aggregator statistics) and by doing so we do not risk overstating the response. The strength of feeling about the film should be reflected in the body of the section. Betty Logan (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. "Positive" is inaccurate as it doesn't reflect to what extent the reviews were positive. A majority of these reviews have been laudatory, which would lead to the logical descriptive term "critical acclaim". "Positive" doesn't accurately summarize the aggregator statistics. They have a set of numerical codes that mean "generally positive" (61 - 80): this film has received a code above that, which the site codes as representing "universal acclaim". We don't have to use the word "universal", but acclaim is certainly appropriate here. I think it would be difficult for a user to single out a film who's critical response was more deserving of the descriptor "acclaim" than this film as only the most acclaimed films of last year scored a 90 or above on Metacritic. I've never seen anyone take issue with this phrase anywhere else on this encyclopedia and I don't understand the argument against using it here. All "acclaim" means is that critics singled something out for significant praise. However, if this is something you won't budge on, why not say something along the lines of "critics gave the film high praise"? There has to be some phrase included that denotes that the praise was significant and enthusiastic. Simply stating that the film received positive reviews would be misguided here. To put this into perspective, this film is currently scoring higher than nearly all of the nominees for Best Picture at last year's Oscars. Metacritic is advertising it as being "the best film of the summer" on their home page. Conservative language would be inaccurate in describing this response. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * One thing that is of concern to me is how prolific the injection of "critical acclaim" has been in the last few days. IP editors demanding "critical acclaim". Named accounts that have been inactive for years suddenly awaken to inject this specific language for a film that hadn't been released in their country yet. What is so important about the specific phrase "critical acclaim"? Why not "mostly positive reviews"? "Significantly positive reviews?" (Meh, I don't know if I like that one.) Why not any alternatives? Forgive me for being suspicious, but based on my ample experience at Wikipedia, when I see such a drive for a phrase this specific, my conspiracy radar goes off and I start wondering if there's not a paid editing ring attempting to manipulate the language in the article in anticipation of the upcoming release dates. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry overmuch about sock/meat puppetry. It's a very popular film in a very popular film series, and it's bound to attract legions of enthusiastic fans from around the globe. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Word. You can't be paranoid unless you're actually paranoid. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's just fans going crazy trying to get a film they love branded with the phrase "critical acclaim". It's also just the norm on this website if something has actually been received enthusiastically by critics. Seeing as how the film is being labeled as having received "universal critical acclaim" on Metacritic, I would say that these users are right in trying to change the page accordingly. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You probably should read WP:Review aggregators. Ultimately all aggregators do is tot up the number of positive reviews and provide an "average" rating i.e. their approach is quantitative, not qualitative. However, if a lead-in to the section cannot be agreed upon operhaps it would best to omit the opening sentence altogether and let the aggregator stats speak for themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the idea of generating a percentage of critics that approved of the film is quantitative, but the approach that Metacritic takes is absolutely qualitative. I suggest you re-read the page for WP:PEACOCK. Additionally, if we completely ignore these sites, we chose to operate on our own individual standards which is wildly inconsistent (for example, the fact that you three oppose the word "acclaim", a WP:FRINGE opinion, despite its extremely common usage on this site). User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright. As we're still having this debate, I thought I'd devote some time to lay out the facts in regards to the ways in which this film is being received critically and why "critical acclaim" is by no means subject to WP:PEACOCK. As you can tell from the numerous edits to this page, this is a popular edit. This film currently has a 91 on Metacritic, a score that is much higher than that of nearly all of the films nominated for Best Picture at last year's Oscars (or any Oscars ceremony for that matter). It also currently has a 99% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes with only one negative review as opposed to 140 positive. It would've nearly impossible for the reception of this film to have been any more enthusiastic. Critic Rebeca Salas called it " best film of its genre in the decade". Suso Aira of Sensacine called it a "masterpiece". A.O. Scott of the New York Times gave it a full score of 100. It has been referred to as one of, if not THE, best action film ever made by several critics. If you're not going to label the response of this film with "acclaim", when would you ever label anything with that word? WP:PEACOCK is only applicable when someone attempts to label something that received moderate praise with an overblown description like "the best film ever"; seeing as how critics are literally referring to it as the best action film ever, the word "acclaim" would absolutely fit. It's not hyperbolic if it's true. Additionally, stating that the film received positive reviews is a vast understatement to the point that it's misleading and inaccurate. I vote for "acclaim". If that's not acceptable, we could use an actual quote from someone who summarized the response. I've already suggested a quote from an AV Club article "near-uniformly rave reviews". User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not sure why "acclaim" is the only word that is being pitched to describe the reception as if "praise", or other words didn't exist. And oh look, another insertion of "universal" from someone who prefers dramatic proclamations over neutral language.. Since this seems to be a problem at this article as well, is anyone here of the opinion that "universal" or "almost/near universal" language belongs in summary? Though the film has an extraordinarily high rating on RT, 1) the universe it a big place 2) universal implies unanimity 2) these are subjective evaluations that shouldn't be presented as facts, just like we wouldn't say "The film is a rotten tomato". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel that most statements on review should stick to the "generally positive," "generally negative," and "mixed" statements. It avoids peacocking and sounds better. --PureRED (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah but the problem is this not generally positive. Except for one critic every other critic gave it a positive review. Broncosman12 (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)broncosman12
 * How is what you are describing not "generally positive"? Thesaurus-wise it's the same sentiment, or close enough. There are other words though, like "universally" which are less suitable for encyclopedias that strive to maintain neutral points of view. Universally, for instance, is synonymous with "unanimous", which is misleading and promotional. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it's not. Broncosman is right. Generally positive is completely inaccurate in this situation. I vote it stays the way it is seeing as how nearly every user who has edited this page wants acclaim. Three users who don't like the word "acclaim" don't outweigh the deluge of editors who wanted that word included. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that "generally positive" doesn't convey what we're seeing here. Pacific Rim received generally positive reviews (72% approval rating on RT). Fury Road is at 99%. That is unique. In fact, it's probably the highest rated film of its kind, ever. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Because it's not." "Generally positive is completely inaccurate in this situation." Any explanations for why, other than a reiteration of "Nuh uh" or "X is completely inaccurate"? You have not yet addressed why the specific phrasing "critical acclaim" is preferable over alternatives like "generally positive reviews" or "widespread positive reviews" or "mostly positive reviews", or... got anything else? Please note also that we don't "vote", we discuss and debate. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I've addressed those concerns numerous times above; the only reason I responded with "because it's not" this time was out of frustration with the fact that you've consistently ignored my talking points (and the talking points of two users above) and repeated the same thing about how "generally positive" is accurate here when I've said over and over again that "positive" doesn't take the degree to which the reviews were positive into account. My "vote" reference was simply a figure of speech. I've been editing for several years and I know how this all works. Broncosman and HappyWaldo are both correct: this is one of the most acclaimed action movies of all time. If you simply google "fury road acclaim", you'll find several major publications using that word to describe the film. I think those objecting to the word have a fundamental misunderstanding with what it means (and no, don't go pulling out the dictionary again). It's a commonly used term to describe when a film has received overwhelmingly positive reception, like this film has. That's it. It is absolutely encyclopedic to use that word. Simply stating that the film received positive, mixed, or negative reviews is far to simplistic because it doesn't convey degree. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what aggregators do. Aggregators are quantitative assessments, not qualitative ones. They simply count the number of positive reviews and calculate a normalized rating. Therefore you can draw conclusions that the reviews were mixed, generally positive, mostly positive etc. It is reasonable to say that a 4-star review is "very positive" for instance. On the other hand these statistics do not determine if a film is critically acclaimed, which depends subjectively on the review itself. Roger Ebert may have given Citizen Kane and The Dark Knight both 4-star reviews but he only calls one of them a "masterpiece". It is entirely accurate and verifiable to say that most of the reviews were positive. It is entirely accurate and verifiable to say that the reviews were very positive. To say that something is "acclaimed" is a value judgment that is not actually supported by the methodology of the aggregators (i.e. WP:Original research), regardless of what their labels say (obviously Metacritic saying something is "universally aclaimed" is demonstrably not true if there are negative reviews). It is more accurate and encyclopedic if neutral and factual language is maintained in describing the critical reception. Betty Logan (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Betty, "universal" is never acceptable, it is literally impossible. I saw the film yesterday and I absolutely loved it and I have nothing but hope for its success so we can get more of them, but calling the reviews positive is not a black mark against the film. Personally I don't feel that acclaim is a suitable word until it starts being backed up with awards. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't support "universal" (although "near-universal" here would be applicable seeing as how it only has one or two documented negative reviews), although I liked the "widespread critical acclaim" description that was listed yesterday. Acclaim doesn't just refer to something that's received awards. Aggregators are not always quantitative assessments. Metacritic was designed specifically to judge the qualitative response a film has received by converting reviews into numerical values. The more enthusiastically positive a review is, the higher the score. I don't know why that's being debated. When it comes to the content of the reviews for the film, I've singled out several reviews that would justify the description of "acclaim". Again: Critic Rebeca Salas called it " best film of its genre in the decade". Suso Aira of Sensacine called it a "masterpiece". A.O. Scott of the New York Times gave it a full score of 100. It has been referred to as one of, if not THE, best action film ever made by several critics. You've been presented with the substance of the reviews. I've explained how Metacritic is a aggregator that measures qualitatively. At some point, we've got to stop arguing the same points over and over again. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We could use the word "overwhelmingly" like steam does for game reviews: Overwhelmingly Negative, Very Negative, Mostly Negative, Mixed, Mostly Positive, Very Positive, Overwhelmingly Positive --PureRED (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the distinction between quantitative and qualitative analysis. Both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic normalize grades and ratings to a score i.e. they reduce all these reviews to basic statistics. That is quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis is what we do here on Wikipedia: we survey the reviews and attempt to summarize all significant opinions. Just because they add a few labels on at the end does not make it qualitative because all conclusions are based on quantifying the data. Betty Logan (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment If a few of you guys don't like the word "acclaim", I've thrown out the idea of using other words like "lauded". If that's still not fine, I've suggested more than once that we use a quote from a source who described the response so as to maintain an encyclopedic tone. One of these assessments from The AV Club describes the response as consisting of "near-uniformly rave reviews". I like that quote and in citing another work, we'd maintain a neutral tone (according to your definition). Are there any objections to using a direct quote? User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are replacing one loaded term with another. "Lauded" is just as loaded and as subjective as "acclaimed". How exactly is it "acclaimed"? In what way is it "lauded"? "Mostly positive" and "very positive" sum up the information the aggregators provide us with in a precise and factual manner. Betty Logan (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And what do you think about the quote? User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with directly quoting a source, provided it is treated as a "finding" rather than as a fact. Take Metacritic's "universal acclaim" quote for example: we make it clear that we are quoting them and that the quote only refers to Metacritic's findings. The problems come when you take quotes or subjective findings and presen them as factual statements. Betty Logan (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've gone on record numerous times at WikiProject Film to express disdain for any type of critical response summary. I don't understand why we need to say "this film got (insert value judgment) reviews" if immediately following that we have Rotten Tomatoes' and Metacritc's scores and explanations. Why do we need to summarize a thing that's already a summary of a thing? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, that's a very valid point. Why mention it at all? PureRED (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with letting the aggregator sites speak for themselves in the critical reception section. If the film starts to garner awards attention, we'll add in "acclaimed". User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not often that I wish to edit pages, but the "critical reception" part on this page is fundamentally wrong. I agree that neutral, accurate terms should be used. And I do understand that Wikipedia needs to maintain an encyclopedic tone. But it is simply inaccurate to say that this film received "generally positive" reviews. As was pointed out earlier, all but five out of 264 critics on RottenTomatoes gave the film a positive review. Richard Roper has described the film as perhaps one of the best action films ever made. "Very positive reviews" is far more accurate and maintains an encyclopedic tone. Edward.shambrook (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this. There are countless pages in Wikipedia that explicit the word "acclaim" and, statistically, judging from the film's score of 98% on RT and 89 on Metacritic, it has more positive reviews than Birdman, in whose page it is explicitly stated that it received "wide critical acclaim." If that's the case, then we should change all the film pages on Wikipedia and change "acclaimed" to "positive reviews." And the idea that only films like Citizen Kane should be labeled as "acclaimed" is strongly condescending, since there are tons of other films that are (if you excuse me) "acclaimed." I'm not there. Message me! 22:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to add: here is an excerpt from the Birdman article: Critical response: Birdman was met with universal critical acclaim; per this logic, both "universal" and "acclaim" should be removed. I'm not there. Message me! 22:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have something more compelling to argue than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'd like to hear it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * An IP editor changed the wording to include "universal acclaim" in that article after it passed GA. I fixed it to be a bit more neutral.  Anyway, I agree with Cyphoidbomb.  There are plenty of articles that could use a bit of editing to tone down their overly-enthusiastic, non-neutral terminology.  Over-the-top stock phrases like "universal acclaim" and "critics raved" belong in Entertainment Weekly, not in Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been carrying around a stick all day, and I think I misinterpreted Katastasi's comment, but I think we're all in agreement here that the fluff should be avoided. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I think using the term "acclaim" (unless it's used in a quotation) is wrong. But statistically, most of the articles already use it, so I don't understand why bother about using "acclaim" specifically in this article. I'm not there. Message me! 18:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I have no problem with "critically acclaimed" if it's widely supported by WP:Reliable sources; by that, I mean if you Google the film with the words "critically acclaimed" or "acclaimed" beside it and a bunch of WP:Reliable sources report the film in that way. Two or three good sources beside the wording "critically acclaimed" in the Wikipedia article is fine with me in that case. And/or if we report that the film has a "universal acclaim" rating on Metacritic, like we currently do for the Mad Max: Fury Road article. But "rave reviews" and similar are a no for me. And I usually stick with "generally positive reviews." Flyer22 (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Section break
Update: As seen here, here, and here, I got into a dispute with an IP who kept adding "universal acclaim" wording attributed to Metacritic for the lead-in summary. Not only was that wording unnecessary because the Metacritic "universal acclaim" bit is already covered in that section, it made it seem like the film being acclaimed is simply according to Metacritic; that is a no-go, per WP:In-text attribution. Googling "Mad Max: Fury Road critical acclaim" shows that various WP:Reliable sources (and poor sources) cite the film as critically acclaimed. As seen here, here, here, here and here, the IP also came to my talk page despite my not wanting him to. I updated the lead-in summary with "critical acclaim" and WP:Reliable sources (followup edit here). I also added criticism of the feminist aspect (followup edits here, here and here), per a different IP matter seen here and here. I added content that does not give men's rights groups WP:Undue weight; besides, it is not just men's rights groups who have criticized the film for Furiosa "stealing the show." Some male fans who are not in men's rights groups have. Flyer22 (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I swapped one of the sources I added for a different one (followup edit here). Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

See the section below for more commentary. Flyer22 (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, regarding the sourced text that you removed, I have to state that I don't see the removal as needed. Editors keep adding back "critically acclaimed," which is why I properly sourced the material. In fact, like I noted in my "02:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)" post above, the IP that I was reverting kept adding the redundant "universal acclaim" Metacritic wording; no one was helping me revert that IP. Then I went out of my way to properly source the "acclaim" material; so we shouldn't have it? Above, I see people against an over-the-top lead-in summary, such as "universal acclaim" or "rave reviews." It's not fully clear that, per above, we shouldn't have a properly sourced "critically acclaimed" lead-in summary. I reiterate that this is the case where the film is called "critically acclaimed" by a variety of WP:Reliable sources, so much so that this The Washington Post source that I'd included analyzed it. Even if we do not re-add "critically acclaimed," I will add commentary from that The Washington Post source (and/or other WP:Reliable sources) noting the critical acclaim and being puzzled by it (or simply analyzing it). Betty Logan, since you started this section, do you have any opinion on my sourced additions and/or about adding a bit from the The Washington Post being puzzled by the film's critical acclaim? Flyer22 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry that I stepped on your toes here. I was under the impression that the general attitude was that the intro sentence was distracting. Anonymous5454 was the chief proponent in this discussion for the inclusion of "acclaim" language, but then we reached a compromise when he said "I'm fine with letting the aggregator sites speak for themselves in the critical reception section." If you disagree with my interpretation of the consensus, I'm happy to talk about it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I made an extra note here on your edit summary. As for removing the lead-in summary of the Critical response section, I simply don't see the point in removing a properly sourced lead-in summary that is supported by various other reliable sources (as seen by a Google search) and when editors keep re-adding "critical acclaim" or something of the sort anyway. And, like I stated, the critical acclaim has been analyzed in this case. If you, User:Anonymous5454, and others prefer to forgo a properly sourced lead-in summary in this case, I will follow that. But the critical acclaim aspect will be noted either way in that section, per the The Washington Post commentary; that source has made solid points about how unusual this film's widespread critical acclaim is. Flyer22 (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * And thanks for the apology. Flyer22 (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, Erik II, can I get your take on these matters (or on some of them)? Flyer22 (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with those who find "mostly positive reviews" to be weak language. Metacritic shows that there were 46 positive reviews, 1 mixed, and 0 negative. The language needs to capture that near-universality. I do not see an issue with using "critical acclaim", but if we want to avoid using the term in Wikipedia's voice, we can do in-text attribution and attribute that wording to the specific periodical. Or figure out similar wording to accomplish that. We avoid certain words like "rave" per WP:SLANG so it can be understandable to all readers. I guess I am not seeing how "critical acclaim" is problematic. Merriam-Webster uses the example sentence, "Her performance in the ballet earned her critical acclaim." Other terms that could be used: "widespread reviews", "critics praised". Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Erik II, thanks for weighing in. As you can see above, I also don't see the problem with "critical acclaim" in this case. As noted with my "02:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)" post, I do have a problem with WP:In-text attribution in this case, though; this is because attributing the "critical acclaim" wording to one source in that way makes it seem like just that one source has called this film critically acclaimed, which is a misuse of WP:In-text attribution. WP:In-text attribution is clear about the ways that WP:In-text attribution deceives. Various WP:Reliable sources have called this film critically acclaimed, and The Washington Post has analyzed that. Therefore, we should simply state the matter as fact.


 * On a side note: Should I keep WP:Pinging you to this section when replying to you? Flyer22 (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Cyphoidbomb and/or others, considering what Erik and I stated above in this section about "critical acclaim" being appropriate in this case, and that it will be mentioned anyway because there is analysis of the film being critically acclaimed, do you still see it as problematic to have a lead-in summary calling this film critically acclaimed? Also, Cyphoidbomb, per you feeling that the "from film critics" wording is redundant, I'd leave that out. I know that you prefer to forgo lead-in summaries (as you've noted times before at WP:Film), but I prefer them. And, like I noted above, I usually go with "generally positive" or "generally negative" wording. But like others, I agree that "generally positive" wording is a bit too soft for this film's lead-in summary. Flyer22 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll yield provided the lead-in makes sense, doesn't use weird subjective language like "overwhelmingly positive" and doesn't come off as promotional. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Since I've been tagged, I'll throw my weight behind the use of "critical acclaim". I've stated that it was appropriate here since the beginning. That being said, I'm very disturbed by the recently included passage about "Men's rights" activists and their criticisms of the female lead. This kind of misogynistic nonsense has no place here and should be removed immediately.User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement on the removal of the men's rights fringe content, should it be added back. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit: I think I misinterpreted what Anonymous5454 was objecting to. I remember some content very specifically about "men's rights groups" getting butthurt and I was referring to that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you were right. I'm objecting to the inclusion of the opinions of supposed "men's rights groups" and articles addressing their opinions. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Cyphoidbomb, considering that the lead already notes that the film is critically acclaimed (I hadn't noticed that until today), I don't see how it hurts to go ahead and have the Critical response section begin with "Mad Max: Fury Road was critically acclaimed." We could then include a short excerpt from the The Washington Post source about that, or save the The Washington Post commentary for a later paragraph about the film's critical acclaim; in this paragraph, we'd include a bit from the The Washington Post and other sources. Then again, maybe if we have a paragraph in the Critical response section addressing the film's critical acclaim, it's too redundant to have the section begin by stating "Mad Max: Fury Road was critically acclaimed." Hmm, I think that I will type up the critical acclaim paragraph first and see what you and others think about that, and then possibly forgo a lead-in summary for that section. The lead calling the film critically acclaimed, and a paragraph in the section analyzing the critical acclaim, would be enough. As for the men's rights aspect, that's addressed in the WP:RfC below, as you know. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

New discussion
I see that Armegon added "generally positive reviews from critics" with sources. My problem with "generally positive" is what has been stated above about the matter; "generally positive" is too soft, and is more so akin to a film that got a score in the 70%, or even 80%, range. I also think we should use better sources than those, such as the ones I used, which are I cited above. And four sources is WP:Citation overkill in this case; three is enough. Soon after Armegon added the text, changes to the wording started because people are usually not going to be satisfied with "generally positive reviews" for a summary statement for this film. NinjaRobotPirate reverted an IP (the first one to make the change after Armegon added the text), stating, "I knew this was going to happen as soon as we let 'p[o]sitive reviews' back in." As seen here, Armegon reverted Benjamin "Jeffrey" Powell, and added a hidden note. I recently tweaked that hidden note. HappyWaldo changed "generally" to "widely." I support "widely" more than I support "generally"; this change has also seemed to help dissuade editors from making alterations to the summary statement. Thank you, HappyWaldo. Sure, we can remove the summary statement again, but I ask: Why? If we remove it, IPs or registered editors will still add a summary statement, as they had been doing while a summary statement was absent. And why not include "critical acclaim" in this case since various reliable sources call this film critically acclaimed, the fact that it is critically acclaimed was analyzed by The Washington Post, and since doing so will certainly stop the dispute?

Pinging Erik, Betty Logan, Cyphoidbomb, who are all regular WP:Film editors, back to this discussion, to see if they have anything to state on this latest summary statement attempt and anything more to state about specific wording. I obviously already pinged NinjaRobotPirate above, and I know he consistently favors avoiding "acclaim." Also pinging film editor GoneIn60, who offers good advice or has good ideas about matters such as these. Sock, who has weighed in on the feminist matter below, might also have an opinion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just did a bit of research today (and I don't know why I didn't begin with this instead of looking for sources citing "positive" reviews) and there is a bunch of sources that support the "critically acclaim" summary, examples here, here, and here. There are more than enough sources that support "critically acclaimed" to replace "positive" for the summary section. If we do change positive to critically acclaimed, not only would it be an accurate edit supported by reliable sources but it would end the constant edit-warring over the summary section. Thoughts? Armegon (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I really think the film community should hash this out in some centralized place, like the MOS talk page. That said, I worry that when we start to create shades of acclaim and shades of criticism, we're basically creating our own rating system, particularly when Rotten Tomatoes has a pass-fail system and we're trying to create nuanced meanings for the in-between percentages. Is 70% on RT "mostly positive"? Is 90% "overwhelming rave response"? Is 60% "slightly good"? Is 5% "mostly shitty"? I mean, if a film gets a 60% rating on RT, it technically has received critical acclaim. Clearly it did. That's why it's on the positive side of 50%. But it's funky to start trying to quantify the difference between 60% and 80%. We have enough problems battling "widely panned", "universal acclaim", "highly positive" (what, are reviewers shouting "Damn this is good!" before fainting in the aisles? Is that what "highly positive reviews" means?) If a reader sees "generally positive", and then notices the giant list of awards elsewhere in the article, doesn't that get the point across? It would be nice to see a system in place already so we don't have to keep going through this at every popular film article. (This is not a criticism of you, Flyer. I'm just grousing that this issue keeps coming up. ) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – As many here are probably aware, I'm not a huge fan of summary statements for pretty much the reason articulated by Cyphoidbomb. In many cases (if not most), they are subjective and lead to constant changes and an abundance of talk page discussions. We should continue to hash it out at WP:FILM and/or MOS:FILM to cement an effective approach for future conflicts. Until then, we'll need to sort it out on each film's talk page. If Wikipedia had a way to lock down a specific section or statement in an article, we'd have an easy way of dealing with it, but unfortunately such a tool doesn't exist.
 * With that said, I certainly understand the other viewpoint that in some situations, summary statements are justified and can be rather useful. This film seems to fall into that realm; the amount of accolades coupled with very high scores on RT and MC changes things and makes this one of the rare exceptions in my book. Clarifying that it has received "critical acclaim", particularly in the lead, helps make one of the film's very important characteristics stand out. It would be one thing to form that on our own, but here we don't have to worry about that. There are plenty of sources that agree, and any reader that reads the Reception section in its entirety should logically agree as well. I also don't think we should fret over the potential of edit-warring, or avoid doing what we think is right because we are concerned it may make matters worse. Let's figure out what the right approach is and stick to our guns. If it gets bad, then maybe we can request long-term "pending revision" protection. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If we've got coverage in secondary sources of the film's reception, maybe it would be better to describe it in more detail than "it received positive reviews/critical acclaim/universal acclaim". For example, that article in The Washington Post analyzes the film's reception in some detail. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying, all of you. Armegon, I'm obviously fine with you using "critical acclaim," as you did minutes ago, but I think we should stick to only three sources and drop the 570news.com source. Cyphoidbomb, I know what you mean, but, as you know, we've discussed summary statements at WP:Film and MOS:FILM before and film editors are divided on the matter, with more of them leaning toward the "no summary statement" side. For these issues, all we need to do is stick to the sources with WP:Due weight, and work matters out on a case-by-case basis. I wouldn't state that 60% is critical acclaim on Rotten Tomatoes, though. GoneIn60, you know that I understand what you mean on these issues. NinjaRobotPirate, good point; I suggested something similar to Cyphoidbomb in my "21:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)" post above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I want ahead and removed the 570news.com source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to control my impulse to remove this poorly-written, poorly-sourced "critical acclaim from critics", but I don't know how much longer I can hold out. For one thing, for a superficial, peacock-ish, strongly worded phrase, we're sourcing it to Screen Rant?  Not Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, or even Entertainment Weekly?  Screen Rant?  Really?  And what exactly does this "it received critical acclaim" add to the reader's understanding beyond a flat report of the film's RT score?  If nobody can come up with sources better than third-rate blogs, I do plan on removing this per the earlier, already-standing consensus against "critical acclaim" in the reception section.  I find it frustrating that this was added back unilaterally, without seeking any kind of consensus here, in the face of opposition and an existing consensus against it.  I suggested that we use the Washington Post article to analyze the film's reception, not to add some blog that says the film received "critical acclaim from critics". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I put in a quotation from Variety, which is worth ten citations to some random gaming blog or a technology website that has no expertise in film reviews. I still think this a bad idea, but at least it uses encyclopedic language and is policy-compliant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Armegon was quick to add the material. And I agree that it should have been discussed more before it was added. In this discussion, I've obviously been for "critical acclaim" and/or using a source to comment on the film's critical acclaim from an analytical perspective. Armegon obviously came around to supporting "critical acclaim." And GoneIn60 agreed that using "critical acclaim" would be fine in this case. I did silently question the use of those sources, as indicated by me removing the 570news.com source. I felt that the Screen Rant source should be removed as well, even though it's sometimes allowed for our articles, but Polygon.com and CNET are solid sources, and so I left them in. As for what you added, I, as you know, am usually against WP:In-text attribution for summary statements of film articles because it can give the impression that only that source or only a few sources support the summary statement. But since you added the "summarized the critical response" bit, I don't have an issue with your addition. That stated, I don't think that wording is needed, and I think an editor is likely to change it back to "Mad Max: Fury Road received critical acclaim from critics." or something similar. But, again, I'm fine with your change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Flyer22. It's an objective fact that Fury Road has received critical acclaim, why turn to Variety (or any source) to summarise it for us? Should we do the same with box office returns? Also the repetition of "critical" is unattractive. - HappyWaldo (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposals
Yes, the current wording could use a bit of tweaking. Here's a suggestion for the opening:

Just throwing this out there. Feel free to refine it further and add your own suggestions below. The thinking here is that if we avoid quantifying the number of sources that support "critical acclaim", then it's easier to throw out one example such as Variety. I think we should add at least one other source at the end of the statement besides Variety that also supports the phrasing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add that I didn't see the Washington Post source in the article that NinjaRobotPirate mentions above. If it breaks this down further and in more detail, then perhaps a summary of what it says should also be included in this first paragraph, alongside RT and MC. That would further support the use of a summary statement. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did change Ninja's edit from "Variety summarized" back to "received critical acclaim". "received critical acclaim" is more objective and fact-based, there's no bias, prejudice, or personal point of view while "Variety summarized" is a bit more subjective. It is in text attribution after all and if we settle on this, it might set a precedent for editors to base their claims on single sources, for example According to rotten tomatoes, (movie) received positive reviews. "Variety summarized" also threads close to synthesis. I checked the article and nowhere does it state that they "summarized the critical reception" based on this or that, it only states “Mad Max: Fury Road” unspooled in an out-of-competition Cannes berth, garnering major critical acclaim. That's as far as their reference for critical acclaim goes, there's no summary of the critical reception in that Variety article nor is there a gathering of reviews with a conclusion or consensus on "major critical acclaim". We can all agree for a fact (based on sources we all have found) that Fury Road did receive critical acclaim but we can all argue about opening with Variety summarized the critical response to... because the article does not do that or reference a summary, it just states the exact same thing we've all been saying, that the movie received critical acclaim.


 * I know that me defending the "received critical acclaim" part may be me being bias because I was the one that wrote it but the reason why I elect to keep it and defend it is because it's simple and basic, and like I said before, it's not bias, prejudice, and does not contain a personal point of view. It's absolutely objective because it is a simple statement supported by reliable sources (which are not blogs, by the way :p). But if there is a consensus here to change it into something else besides "Fury Road received critical acclaim from critics", then I won't fight it. Thoughts? Armegon (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily disagree with the change, but since we are in the middle of a discussion, it would be best to pitch proposals here instead of ramming changes into the article. We're in no rush, so the focus right now should be on achieving consensus. Otherwise, you risk agitating others participating in this discussion and delaying the process. Not only did you change the wording, but you reinstated the Screen Rant source, which was contested by more than one editor above.
 * Disclaimer out of the way, I think the statement needs to be more informative if we're going to have one. Just saying "critical acclaim" and referencing a handful of sources isn't going to sit well with some. Also the use of "widespread" is sure to cause problems. I pitched a proposal above, so hopefully we can use that as a starting point. The goal in my suggestion is to substantiate "critical acclaim" from multiple angles: review aggregators, publications (sources), and accolades. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just caught up on this discussion. I was busy with work at the time that it continued and got sidetracked. I don't think that NinjaRobotPirate necessarily engaged in WP:Synthesis. His use of "summarized" can simply mean "described" or "categorized." I think this is what he was going for. I agree with GoneIn60 about consensus and that the statement should be more informative. Or rather that we should elaborate on the statement with the analysis aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015
Okay, this fan criticism section needs to be addressed. A small men's rights blog wrote a loaded, misogynistic plea to boycott this film in order to keep "action movies free of women".

You need to either drop this section because it feels completely superfluous and unnecessary, or someone needs to expand it an explain in further detail who these people are sending criticism towards to movie for its "agenda".

2606:6000:6785:8100:F9C7:1B95:A555:7A5D (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed by in .  Personally, I'm neutral on the issue and don't much care if it stays or goes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably constitutes WP:FRINGE. Only one ref was presented so it's unclear if the upset gained any additional steam. If it made national headlines then maybe it would be worth a brief mention? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely WP:FRINGE. This is essentially a hate group. Popcornduff (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It actually did go mainstream with the major news outlets picking it up, though IDK if that's what you meant by "national headlines" vis a vis the controversy of the blog or the controversy of having women in action movies. 76.100.131.106 (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

A single negative review doesn't become a "fan backlash" just because it receives national attention. Also, for future reference, the site that carried the review is a pickup artist site and has explicitly stated it isn't a men's rights site (http://www.femitheist.net/2015/05/mediagate-mad-max-the-boycott-that-wasnt.html)."Strippy6 (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC 205.197.242.186 (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * While HappyWaldo and others are correct that we should be wary of WP:Fringe additions, HappyWaldo's statement that "fan criticism is irrelevant anyway" is not necessarily true; see Manual of Style/Film. It depends on what traction it's gotten in WP:Reliable sources. As noted in the section above, I added a bit of commentary to the section regarding some men disliking the film because of Furiosa "stealing the show" and/or supposed feminist propaganda. WP:Reliable sources are reporting on this, and so should we...without giving it WP:Undue weight. Like I stated in the Critical reception section above, it's not just men in men's rights groups criticizing the development of Furiosa, it's men who are not in men's rights groups criticizing the development of Furiosa. Whether we call them sexist, misguided fanboys, or whatever else, sources are noting this with regard to a cultural divide; and, again, it is something this article should cover. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sock, how is this or the other male criticism aspect I added there WP:Undue weight? I know that policy well, and I follow it, and I don't see my addition in this regard as violating it; this is per my "04:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)" comment above in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that specific passage, just how much of that Reuters article is included. One person's opinion encompasses more than half of a very long paragraph. We need to mix up the commentary with more opinions, or we need to expand on the people who praised the feminism to show that it happened more than it didn't. As it stands, three opinions praising the film's portrayal of women are relegated to a single 50-word, sentence, while one opinion criticizing it is given two 60-word sentences, and that's not including the part I removed. Through the amount of time allocated to each opinion, you would think that Parramore's opinion is far more important than the report from the Daily Mail and the opinions of Paul Byrnes and Jessica Valenti (who both go unnamed in this article). That's definitely giving too much weight to Parramore in my eyes, especially seeing as we can definitely find more articles praising the film's feminism and more articles that share Parramore's stance as well. Sock   ( tock talk)  15:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That specific passage that I included is not full-on criticism of the feminism aspect, though; it's a summary of feelings regarding it. The only part of it criticizing the feminism aspect is the widely quoted piece you removed, and we don't need more criticism of the feminism angle than that. I can understand the idea that undue weight was given to Parramore's article (I thought about that when adding it), but, in my opinion, that content addressed all of the necessary points without spending even more time on them or giving undue weight to the anti-feminism or anti-Furiosa views. What Parramore stated is essentially what feminists and those who are not feminists like about the film. We don't need to quote the same thing over and over again from different reviewers, but I understand your point about variety. Parramore notes the divide, why it likely exists and that there is an anti-feminist angle. That was enough for that paragraph. Yes, as seen by this, this and this source, there clearly is room for expansion of these aspects in that section. But no one was expanding that material. They were reverting an IP for removing content about feminists praising the film. Someone should have already included content from those sources about some of the male backlash against the film. We should be noting the feminist praise, why some men are against the film, and that some sources have called them sexist and/or misogynistic. But again, not all of the male criticism has come from men's rights activists. Some of these articles, like Parramore's, simply note men being threatened by or otherwise upset by Furiosa (meaning without tying them to a men's rights mindset). Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The passage absolutely violates WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE and should be removed immediately. This kind of criticism is rooted in misogyny and sexism and represents the opinion of a very, very small group of men who object to the fact that a woman is the lead in an action movie. I'm amazed we're even discussing its inclusion. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Anonymous5454, you do not appear to understand WP:Fringe and/or WP:Undue. Or WP:Consensus, for that matter either. In other words, you are wrong for this and this, and I will be starting a WP:RfC on it soon. And I state that as a female/woman, and one who has repeatedly objected to men's rights editors skewing Wikipedia articles, whether it's the Sexism article, the Domestic violence, the Reproductive coercion article or something else. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's be very clear: As of now, there are seven users (Cyphoidbomb, Popcornduff, Strippy6, Sock, HappyWaldo, 2606:6000:6785:8100:F9C7:1B95:A555:7A5D, and myself, User:Anonymous5454) who have a majority consensus that this information should not be included. Flyer22, I'm sorry, but you cannot include this information. You have not generated a sufficient consensus and therefore the information stays off the page. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Anonymous5454, yes, let's be very clear: The content they were against removing is not the content that I added. The WP:RfC will clear all of this up. Prepare for it. I will...with various WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Flyer22, please don't resort to WP:PA when there are seven separate users telling you, flat out, that you're incorrect in including this information and have all said, several times, that it violates both WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. You have not generated a consensus proven by the simple fact that you have not been able to generate a single person who agrees with you, let alone a majority opinion. Your edits are becoming destructive. If you want to include this information, you must be able to generate WP:CONSENSUS. The users above were not "against removing" anything; they all made arguments for removing the opinions of a sexist, male commenter that someone referenced in an article, something that you argued should be included. Also, please drop the combative, portentous tone. You are making edits on Wikipedia. This is not an arena and you're not sparring with anyone. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Anonymous5454, so in addition to needing to understand WP:Fringe, WP:Undue and WP:Consensus, you need to understand the WP:Personal attacks policy as well. I got it. You also apparently need to read better, since there have not been "seven separate users telling [me], flat out, that [I'm] incorrect in including this information." No editor, except you, stated anything like to me. If you read Sock's reply to me above, he didn't even state that to me. Cyphoidbomb even stated, to no one in particular, "If it made national headlines then maybe it would be worth a brief mention?" From reading the section above, I knew you'd be tough to deal with. No matter; the WP:RfC is coming. Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Insulting my intelligence certainly qualifies as a WP:PA. This isn't some kind of argument and I'm not an enemy; you're supposed to be engaging in a legitimate discussion as to why this information should be included, not trying to "deal" with those who don't agree with you. This is the last of my involvement in this bizarrely combative incident (I'm going to avoid you entirely in the future after reading all of your truly awkward and self-aggrandizing paragraphs on your user page detailing all of the times your teachers supposedly lavished praise on you and begged you to go into a variety of fields because of your supposed otherworldly intellect; that was surreal to read), but you seem to have misunderstood the proceedings above. The initial argument started with several users objecting to the inclusion of some "fan criticism" that referenced the opinions of "men's rights activists". This was removed promptly for obvious reasons. You then went back and re-added this information and expanded upon it. This obviously doesn't constitute a "brief mention", something that Cyphoidbomb was noncommittal about in his overall discention in regards to its inclusion. You included far too much of Parramore's opinion; it was larger than the entire rest of the paragraph. There's no need to address the opinions of a few misogynists marketing themselves as "men's rights activists" who criticized the movie; it represents a WP:FRINGE opinion and should not be included. While I generally like the information you added and agree with Parramore's overall sentiment in regards to the insecurities of those male critics, it still addresses a WP:FRINGE opinion and was far too lengthy, signifying WP:UNDUE, as Sock said. The brief sentence or two that now references the opinions of feminists is all that is required as it represents the view of a legitimate activist group. Like the users I've pointed to stated above, there is no need to address the opinions of a small band of misogynists. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Anonymous5454, questioning your understanding of WP:Policies and guidelines is not insulting your intelligence. Neither is wondering if you thoroughly read this section. You state that you are not an enemy, but the way that you edit, which is certainly far more combative than how I've ever edited, and looking into your edit history, says otherwise. So does your vow to "avoid [me] entirely in the future after reading all of [my] truly awkward and self-aggrandizing paragraphs on [my] user page detailing all of the times [my] teachers supposedly lavished praise on [me] and begged me] to go into a variety of fields because of [my] supposed otherworldly intellect." You exaggerate in that regard. But if you doubt that otherworldly intellect, you can ask various editors who've seen it and/or commented on it at Wikipedia. But enough about me. I really don't like to brag. I am still not convinced that you can read this discussion properly since you've stated that "[I] then went back and re-added this information and expanded upon it." Wrong. Furthermore, I didn't even know of this discussion until after I added the material. You are also wrong to frame men being upset with the film as simply a men's rights activists matter; like I stated above, "not all of the male criticism has come from men's rights activists. Some of these articles, like Parramore's, simply note men being threatened by or otherwise upset by Furiosa (meaning without tying them to a men's rights mindset)." And removing all of what I added was entirely uncalled for. I've been clear above that "[w]e should be noting the feminist praise, why some men are against the film, and that some sources have called them sexist and/or misogynistic." And I'll be clear about that in the WP:RfC as well. For both of our sakes, I hope I never have to interact with you in the future beyond this discussion. But, seeing as we both edit film articles, that is unlikely. I appreciate that you don't edit sexology, anatomy and other science articles. Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * To others, I don't see this matter as that different than the Talk:Frozen (2013 film)/Archive 3 and Talk:Frozen (2013 film)/Archive 2 examples, where editors debated whether including a Portrayal of emotions and perceived LGBT parallels section was WP:Undue weight and/or WP:Fringe, but eventually agreed to have the section because so many WP:Reliable sources were covering and analyzing the matters it addresses. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Should commentary on sexist, misogynistic and/or anti-feminist feelings be included?
This RfC concerns the Critical response section of the article. See the Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015 discussion above on the talk page for further detail. One view is that the material "absolutely violates WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE and should be removed immediately. This kind of criticism is rooted in misogyny and sexism and represents the opinion of a very, very small group of men who object to the fact that a woman is the lead in an action movie. [...] There's no need to address the opinions of a few misogynists marketing themselves as 'men's rights activists' who criticized the movie." The other view is that "Whether we call them sexist, misguided fanboys, or whatever else, sources are noting this with regard to a cultural divide; and, again, it is something this article should cover. [...] We should be noting the feminist praise, why some men are against the film, and that some sources have called them sexist and/or misogynistic. But again, not all of the male criticism has come from men's rights activists. Some of these articles [..] simply note men being threatened by or otherwise upset by Furiosa (meaning without tying them to a men's rights mindset)."

Some sources showing the feminist, sexist, misogynistic and/or anti-feminist commentary are the following:

1. This "7 ways ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ sublimely subverts movie sexism" HitFix source, for example, states, "There’s nothing secret about it. Fury Road is two hours of high octane action that is also a giant middle finger to every sexist action movie trope that has come before it. From the moment Imperator Furiosa takes a hard left into the desert to the second the end credits rolls, Miller is not interested in the status quo whether it comes to stunts, storytelling, or stereotypes." 2. This "Why Imperator Furiosa, not Mad Max, is the hero for our age" Reuters source, for example, states, "The female savior-hero took a while to get to cultural center stage, but in the form of Furiosa, her presence is so powerful — even with only one arm — that many male action-film fans are enraged that she has stolen the show. The fan backlash against Fury Road, despite the critical acclaim, may reflect another societal shift in which many men feel that their social and economic power has been threatened. I hadn’t planned on seeing Mad Max: Fury Road, but once I heard that some men had declared the movie a feminist conspiracy of mass-emasculating proportions, I couldn’t resist. And now I’m here to tell you that I can see why some men – sexist men, anyway – would be afraid of it. They should be."

3. This Tom Hardy Perfectly Shuts Down a Reporter Who Asks a Sexist Question About 'Mad Max: Fury Road'" ETonline.com source, for example, states, "Naturally, the conversation turned to the fact that the movie has women in it who are allowed to do more than be saved and have cleavage (as it seems to do in every interview about Fury Road). The reporter starts, 'I’ll preface my remarks by saying that I have five sisters, a wife, a daughter, and a mother, so I know what it’s like to be outgunned by estrogen.' The reporter, Peter Howell of the Toronto Star, clarified to Buzzfeed News that his question 'was intended as the opposite of sexism.' Instead, Howell claims, 'I was congratulating him for his willingness to share the screen with so many strong women in a franchise and genre more inclined to celebrate the male over the female.' He later admits, 'I don’t think I worded my question very well.' Anyway, Mad Max: Fury Road is feminist. It’s also crazy good. So get over it. Move on. Stop asking about why it’s feminist, and just start enjoying the fact that it is. Like with your new favorite meme: Feminist Mad Max."

4. This "'Mad Max: Fury Road': Where feminist revenge fantasy meets old school redemption quest" Salon source, for example, states, "But minimally fleshed out female characters and a nod to global violence against women were, it seems, too much for some people. Men’s rights activists lost their shit over the film, with one representatively vewy angwy guy calling it 'feminist propaganda' and 'a piece of American culture ruined and rewritten.'"

5. This "No, Mad Max: Fury Road is not a feminist masterpiece (but that’s OK)" New Statesman source, for example, states, "Neither Pretty Woman nor Showgirls are hailed as 'feminist masterpieces', but since its opening weekend Mad Max: Fury Road has been celebrated as exactly that. Often, I’ve observed, by men – feminist allies gleefully celebrating the introduction or deconstruction of gender politics to a stereotypically male genre. A feminist masterpiece would be Furiosa’s story. It’s not. It’s Max’s story. He’s haunted by the women and girls he failed to save, redeemed by the women and girls he succeeds in saving."

6. This ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ and the political limits of action movies" The Washington Post source, for example, states, "It’s no longer a surprise when an action blockbuster spurs a fierce political debate, but even by that measure, the reception for George Miller’s latest installment in the 'Mad Max' franchise, Mad Max: Fury Road, has stirred unusual passions. Before the movie even arrived in theaters, some men’s rights activists declared themselves squarely against it, on the grounds that Max was being sidelined in favor of a woman and that men were being treated like the enemy. Writers from a range of outlets and perspectives embraced precisely those parts of the film that the men’s rights critique disdained. And a third crew of critics sallied forth to claim the movie for a wider-ranging humanism. It’s simultaneously true that they’re all correct about 'Mad Max,' but also that none of them are, not entirely."

7. This "Believe the Hype: The New Mad Max Movie Is an Awesome Feminist Thrill Ride" Glamour source, for example, states, "Miller consulted with feminist and Vagina Monologues creator Eve Ensler when making the film, inviting her on set to talk about violence against women. 'It was really a wonderful experience for me,' Ensler told NPR. 'And a real honor to sit with those wonderful actors and talk about issues like how do you feel carrying a baby of someone who's raped you? What does it mean to be held captive by a warlord who is using you as a breeder and raping you constantly?' Perhaps it's not so surprising then that Mad Max, played by Tom Hardy, becomes almost an afterthought in the movie—more of a helpful sidekick than a starring action hero. That role is reserved for Furiosa, who not only has a higher skill level—at one point in the film, Max surrenders his gun to her when he can't make the shot; she nails it in one try—but also a higher mission."

8. This "Misogynists are totally right to be mad at Mad Max" The Verge source, for example, states, "Last week, the best publicity Mad Max: Fury Road could possibly have gotten — besides the nigh-universal critical praise, of course — was an angry anti-feminist blog post calling for men to avoid 'the Trojan Horse feminists and Hollywood leftists will use to (vainly) insist on the trope women are equal to men in all things.' The downright mad, or perhaps even furious article was picked up on The Mary Sue, CNN, The Hollywood Reporter, The A/V Club, and other sites, frequently under the headline that men's rights advocates were boycotting Mad Max. This wasn't quite accurate. The primary source was one blog post, posted on the anti-feminist site Return of Kings and discovered by inimitable 'manosphere' reporter David Futrelle. Return of Kings didn't organize much of a formal boycott, and it says it rejects the 'men's rights' movement proper, although to outsiders, that's a pretty fine distinction. (As far as I understand, a major difference is that they hate women but want to have sex with them instead of hating women and pretending to not want to have sex with them. It's complicated.) Outside the manosphere, though, we're having the same basic debate about Game of Thrones, whose frequent rape scenes spurred The Mary Sue to start a real boycott of the show. We're talking about what actually reflects human experience in fiction, and what's just an overused trope, an idea we've seen so many times that we confuse it for reality. And whether you're there for the narrative themes or the car chases, Fury Road is a film that actively deflates one of misogynists' most treasured fantasies."

I will alert the WikiProjects associated with this talk page to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Alerted here, here, here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes (and if so, how much?)

 * Yes, this content should be included. WP:FRINGE does not apply because this perspective has received mainstream coverage. If the original complaints took place and no authoritative reliable source picked up on it, we would not include it here. As for the amount of coverage, I think there should be a section about the film's feminism under which these complaints can be a part. I'm finding the current commentary about feminism rather in passing here. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Erik II, by "commentary," do you mean the sources I listed above? If so, the ones I listed addressing feminism mention it more than in just passing. Excuse me for replying to you here instead of in the Discussion section below, but I felt it would be better to ask the question here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant that the article body was lacking in coverage. I think it would help to have a section since the coverage can be grouped as a sub-topic under this primary topic. The sources you listed above should definitely be used for such a section. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes per WP:WEIGHT all significant viewpoints should be included, and there has been mainstream coverage of this aspect. As to what extent, it is reasonable to devote one full paragraph to any particular theme in a "themes" or critical reception section. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. The anti-feminist outrage received mainstream coverage in multiple reliable sources, and it generated commentary from professional journalists.  A paragraph that describes the critical reception by feminists, anti-feminists, and other associated groups would be sufficient. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditionally support So long as we are not giving undue weight to a fringe who wants publicity for their group, and that we are instead using reliable independent sources to analyze different perspectives proportionate to the attention they received in these sources, then I am okay with reasonable coverage of the feminist discussion along with the mainstream takes on whatever notable masculinist (?) discussions there were. Was that vague and elusive? I hope not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditionally support So long as the mention is about the discussion itself & not the points of view in it: that is, mention there's been dispute by (groups named), with links to where the dispute(s) is, & leave it to the interested to follow the links. Let's not give them a hosting.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Conditionally support per Cyphoidbomb. My only objection to this initially was the amount of weight given to a single opinion, but I'm certainly open to expanding on the topics discussed in the Reuters article we currently have on the page. Sock   ( tock talk)  20:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sock, the Lynn Stuart Parramore Reuters source isn't currently in the article, but I'm sure that's the source you are talking about. I understand your point about me having added too much from that source. I didn't expect my addition to be the last word on the matter, though. Once editors got around to expanding that feminist and/or anti-feminist material, I expected that my addition would be slimmed down. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not Some of the sources listed in the 'hat' seem notable, others I can't assess the weight of. I don't understand quite why the question is framed in the fashion it is though. This is just a weight matter.Pincrete (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pincrete, thanks for weighing in. What do you think I did wrong with framing the question? I framed it that way based on the dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 I don't know how you might have framed the question, but the wording seemed 'loaded'. I came up with my answer after skimming the reviews, some are US sites that I don't know but some are fairly mainstream (WashPost? New S.?), it's clear that the furore (which I don't understand) about 'gender roles' is notable in its own right (in the same way, if not the same scale, that Golden Compass attracted attention because of its 'anti-religious' message). How much ??? … … … Trekphiler gives a fairly good answer, though I wouldn't see any problem with a few short quotes to give the flavour of what was said. To me this is weight, not the nature of the comments/criticisms themselves.Pincrete (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pincrete, I don't understand how the "Should commentary on sexist, misogynistic and/or anti-feminist feelings be included?" question seems loaded, given what has been discussed on this talk page regarding whether or not those views should be in the article. I also made sure to word the commentary underneath as neutrally as possible, with a listing of sources (which you've had a look at). But, again, thanks for the feedback; I will try to make my WP:RfC wordings seem less loaded in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 'loaded' isn't a big deal, and if anything the 'loading' is (I think) against your point of view. The question is whether commentary which has received widespread-ish coverage, should be covered, (regardless of the character of that commentary) to which the answer has to be yes. How much?? … … reading the discussion between you and Trekphiler below, I was somewhere between your two positions, mindful like her/him of the issue not taking over the article or 'advertising' fairly marginal sources, but also recognising the need to represent what originally caused the discussion.Pincrete (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes per Erik's explanation. While the initial "men's rights" complaints were definitely a fringe thing, further mainstream coverage of 1) their complaints and 2) (and more importantly in my opinion due to the amount of coverage it's received) critical analysis examining the film's themes and characters in a feminist light absolutely warrants inclusion.  Millahnna (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No

 * Do Not Support MiracleMat (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Do Not Support User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Moved this to the discussion section since it's lengthy now. Flyer22 (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Trekphiler, it seems like you are suggesting the type of vague addition that Erik II objected to above; it's similar to what is in the article now. The only difference with your suggestion is that we would state that some men, including men's rights activists, disliked the film. If we aren't noting the commentary, including the analysis of those who disagree with the anti-feminism and/or who are anti-Furiosa, then how is that a good addition to the article? Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure it belongs in at all. Reading the quotes, I find the controversy merits a mention, but I really, really don't want the page to degenerate into a flamewar over that, & it seems likely it will if the actual remarks go in. Besides which, if they do, there will need to be a lot of context added--none of which has a single damn thing to do with the movie itself. In essence, the page on the movie will have been highjacked. So, to avoid avoiding the issue, but to try & avoid a highjack... If you've got a better solution, I'm happy to listen. I don't.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Trekphiler (WP:Pinging you again because I'm not sure if you are watching this article), perhaps you are not stating that we should be as vague as I interpreted? Maybe you are stating that we shouldn't include any of the anti-comments and should instead summarize them, such as "men were opposed to [so and so] because of [so and so]? Maybe you are stating that the only quoting on this matter should be from the pro-camp? To get a better idea of what you mean, what do you think of this addition? How would you prefer that addition to be included? As noted in the section above, Sock likes the points made in that addition, but feels that we should express those points from more than just one reviewer; he cut this piece. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the ping, I wasn't watchlisting this. ;) (I will for the duration of this discussion, tho.) And I mean we should be as "high-flying" as we can get away with: mention the controversy, cite it, link to it, & ignore it. (No, not take a position, unless you count not taking one as a position. ;p If you do, that's mine. :D ) Even a summary might be too much. It's not about the subject of the page. If anything, the controversy might need its own page--for the same reason this junk does: it keeps the nuts off the subject page, & gives them a voice, without highjacking the subject page. I hope I'm clear(er?).  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * So you do mean that we should be as vague as I originally interpreted? I think that being vague is not encyclopedic in this case. We should be noting what the feminist praise is about (especially since having a feminist take was the director/writer's intention), which we partly already do. And we should be noting the anti-feelings; by that, I mean things that the Lynn Stuart Parramore Reuters source notes. Of, course, we don't have to use the anti-quotes and we shouldn't give WP:Undue weight to the negative feelings. The vast majority of the weight, per WP:Due weight, should go to the pro-side. So I prefer the others' opinions on how we should go about this, whether we create a subsection for it or not. And this case doesn't need its own Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "vague" is the word. What I'm looking for is essentially equal indifference to both sides. If you can cite the director's intent, fine, & saying, "A pro-feminist aim was intended", also fine; once that's said, saying much past, "The film created considerable furor among feminists & (whatever they're called) alike for its treatment of its main female characters" (with cites & XT links) is getting OT for the page, which is, must remain, about the film & not about the controversy: not "pro" weight--no weight. It's not about the controversy--it's about the film. Getting off that topic is something for a page of its own--or another site.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying, but I can't agree that the route others and I want to take with this aspect would be off-topic. I'm fine with stating something like "The film created considerable furor among feminists & (whatever they're called) alike for its treatment of its main female characters" (well, I'd prefer a word other than furor since it's understood to mean anger more than it is understood to mean positivity), but the others (including me) who support inclusion of the anti-feelings are also stating that we should note what the feminists were stating and what the anti-feelings are and why. We already have the following in the section: "The film has also been praised by feminists on several fronts, including the dominant role taken by Furiosa and the range of atypical female roles including the Vuvalini and the gun-toting wives." As you can see from that, even though it's brief, we at least note why it received praise from feminists. We shouldn't simply state "Some men, including men's rights activists, were upset with the film." The question begs: Why were they upset? And we should note why, and what professional critics and/or journalists state about the matter. No one is stating that we should include a lot about these men. Even Erik II above is not stating that; he's stating that we should have a feminism subsection and include a little bit on the anti-feminist and/or anti-Furisoa feelings there in that section. All of this concerns the film; it's not off-topic. MOS:FILM shows how we handle such matters. If audience response (meaning response not solely from professional film critics) warrants inclusion, then we include it. We don't create a WP:Spinout article just to address a relatively small debate or any debate that doesn't require a WP:Spinout article; creating such is giving WP:Undue weight to that matter. Ideally, a WP:Spinout article should only be created when needed. It's not needed in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you limited the comment to a brief list of why, & no more (on a par with the feminist mention you quote), & were willing to delete anything beyond that, I'd be satisfied. If it started growing beyond that passing mention, I'd say take it all out, because now, it's in "mission creep". Extensive quotes from either side need to be kept out.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment only I won't give an opinion on the RFC since I'm biased against the so-called "men's rights" extremists enough that I can't offer an unbiased opinion on the extant RFC however I would like to suggest that more information is better than less even if said information bends the guidelines about WEIGHT, SPINOUT, and other guidelines.
 * Remember: Wikipedia rules are not hard-coded in stone, editors may violate guidelines if editors feel it is appropriate to do so. Also remember: People seeking information about subjects come to Wikipedia looking for more than just the stark facts of things, they would like to see a broad spectrum of details about what they're researching. More information is better, and the subject of so-called "men's rights" right wing extremist rhetoric directed against the film and its women actors is going to be part of what researchers would like to see.
 * Whether enough editors feel that such information is suitable for inclusion or not is up to those of you who respond affirmatively to the RFC. My only opinion on this is that more information is better in almost any Wikipedia RFC-requested issue. Damotclese (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Post-discussion
LavaBaron, thanks for closing the section above, though I'm not sure that WP:Consensus was for only one paragraph. I think one or two paragraphs would be fine, but I can understand that one paragraph seems like the best compromise, given the WP:Due weight concerns. Flyer22 (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus was only achieved with the !votes of editors who expressed support conditioned on inclusion not becoming unwieldy. Half of these editors specifically used the verbiage "a paragraph" or "one full paragraph" while others were more vague but generally supported inclusion provided it was not UNDUE. Further, none of the supporting !votes objected to these limits during the discussion or suggested alternate ones - either the vague indicators or the specific limit of "one paragraph" - thereby indicating acceptance of the proposals. Consensus is for exactly one paragraph. Consensus is not for "one or two paragraphs." As with all closures, this can be appealed at WP:ANI. LavaBaron (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * LavaBaron (last time WP:Pinging you to this discussion because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies and/or that this page is currently on your WP:Watchlist), I am not looking to appeal your close (granted, editors commonly expect a WP:Administrator to close such matters rather than a WP:Non-admin closure); I simply questioned an "only one paragraph" interpretation of the consensus. And I stated that while accepting "one paragraph" as an okay compromise. Erik II suggested a section. Betty Logan stated that "it is reasonable to devote one full paragraph to any particular theme in a 'themes' or critical reception section." NinjaRobotPirate stated, "A paragraph that describes the critical reception by feminists, anti-feminists, and other associated groups would be sufficient." Trekphiler wanted less than a well-sized paragraph. Millahnna agreed with Erik II. And the others didn't specify, except for Damotclese stating that "more information is better than less." So while I understand how you came to the "one paragraph" conclusion, I also questioned it. Thanks for the explanation. Flyer22 (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As per the closure, consensus is for exactly one paragraph. Questions as to the accuracy of the closure should be addressed to ANI. LavaBaron (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm going to assume you didn't grasp my "06:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)" post. On a side note: Challenging a close is usually not a WP:ANI matter; see Closing discussions. Flyer22 (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As per the closure, consensus is for exactly one paragraph. I invite you to appeal the closure anywhere that strikes your fancy. LavaBaron (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Udoks, regarding this piece you were reverted on, see above in this section; there is WP:Consensus to add material on that matter, but only under certain circumstances. And, no, I still don't agree with LavaBaron's interpretation of just one paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As per wikipedia's guidelines bold edits are encouraged. While this can keep being discussed here what I presented was a potential short paragraph on the proposed topic and it's relevance here. I see no reason MRAs boycotting Mad Max shouldn't be mentioned as multiple sources back up the claim. As such it is not our job to determine WP:Truth but to showcase what the sources say. As such the sources clearly say that there was an MRA boycott of the film. Which is relevant to it's reception. Udoks (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)