Talk:Matthew Michael Carnahan

Removing information
Before I touched the article all it consisted of was a bit of bio and a bunch of info about how some critics hated his films. If the article was much bigger or more balanced the info might be viable (might being the key word) but as of now it hardly belongs. Suggest that if anyone believes it belongs then adding something about positive reviews as well. It's not as if his films scored in the 10-20% range with critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.19.166 (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to add reliably sourced information, however blanket removal of sourced information is not acceptable. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because information is sourced does not mean it belongs in an article. You very well know that. In this case, the information presented is placed in a way that makes this article sound decidedly negative. While those quotes would be right at home in articles about the films (as a matter of fact, they are in those articles), at this juncture I can't see how it belongs on Carnahan's article. The article is about him, not specifically about the two films he has worked on.

I respectfully assert that you warning me and threatening to have me blocked way oversteps what the situation requires and is a blantant violation of the good faith policy. You're obviously entitled to disagree with me but the hostility I'm sensing is totally uncalled for. If you would like to assist me on working on the article, then I welcome it. Alternatively, I'd welcome a RfC and will happily accept consensus.

In the meantime, I'm going to try and adjust the article so that it can reflect the tone of critical response to his films without emphasizing on every critical response to his work. I'll make some changes soon and if you disagree with them or think there could be improvements please state them here and I'm sure we can reach a conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.19.166 (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the quotes from the negative film review, but kept the information about the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores. I think this is a good medium and makes the page fair and about Carnahan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.19.166 (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to continually revert you, and I will work towards a compromise version. Do you have any policies or guidelines to support your removal of reliably sourced critical reviews?  We don't just remove things because they're negative, especially when the source is unquestionably reliable.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to talk about it instead of warning me or simply reverting the edits.

The entries are intended to encyclopedic, correct? Well, as it was the entry basically just talked about the reception to his films with one particularly negative quote listed; not exactly encyclopedic or fair.

Furthermore, the same quote can be found in the article for The Kingdom, where it certainly does belong. Perhaps if the bio on Carnahan were much more comprehensive and detailed, the quote (along with others to add to and balance it out) would be appropriate, but as far as a tiny article such as this one is concerned it seems glaringly out of place.

While I don't dispute that the source is an actual review of the film, reliability alone does not always justify inclusion. I think it would be more appropriate to totally remove all the stuff about reviews, but I think leaving the Metacritic/Tomatoes stuff in is a good compromise at this juncture.

Alternatively, if you think the article would be much stronger with the quotes, perhaps you could restore the critical one with a "on the other hand, so and so said these gushing words about the film..." type thing. Were that the case, I'd suggest adding positive and negative quotes about both of Carnahan's films. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.19.166 (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Points taken; I can't argue that it's necessary to present both positive and negative reviews (if both exist). I would suggest that it is more in the spirit of wikipedia generally and WP:NPOV particularly that we strive to encompass all viewpoints rather then removing references to them.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander... we should stick with the compromise version you proposed until we have a balanced presentation.  I'm not terribly familiar with the subject; do you have any sources that may be appropriate?  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I don't have a horse in this race, but I came here because I'd never heard of the guy before and I wanted to hear what the critical reaction to his work is. The idea that someone has been removing sourced instances of the very material I was looking for because... what, it's too negative? That seems blatantly absurd to me. So for what it's worth, as a user of wikipedia, I case my vote for 'keep the stuff in so I don't have to trawl around in the article history to find it or e.g. go onto rotten tomatoes'. 94.193.220.27 (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)