Talk:The G Word

Reception section[edit]

I removed a "Criticism" section that only included random assertions from a piece on Reason.com that were taken out of context - for instance, a sentence fragment of an interview with Barack Obama that was misleadingly snipped to make it sound like he was claiming he wanted to be "king for a day", when in fact he was making a broader point. I replaced it with a more evenhanded NPOV "Reception" section listing varying reviews of the show. MellowOffspring (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with the replacement. SWinxy (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section 2023[edit]

Let's discuss how to handle the "Reception" section. Using a third-party review aggregator like Rotten Tomatoes for the first-sentence summary of the section conforms to NPOV far better than editors trying to subjectively summarize the reviews themselves. If there is another review aggregator that has a mixed summary, we could cite that, but I couldn't find one. I think the section currently does a good job of summarizing the reviews, in that it references multiple negative or mixed reviews, and contextualizes / summarizes that criticism. @Moops appears to disagree, but I'd love to discuss that here and get some other opinions rather than edit warring. MellowOffspring (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to use that, then we should at least include both metrics. I'll add the other now. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 01:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moops, I truly appreciate this attempt at a compromise, but unfortunately the use of Rotten Tomatoes user scores is prohibited by Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Quote: "Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users are not." To that end, I've reverted the edit. MellowOffspring (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]