Talk:Truth (2015 film)

THR premiere article edit
, these edits do not conform to WP policy of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE weight, especially in the lead (which is not the place for such information). Moreover, The Hollywood Reporter article cited is not a review of the film, but a report on the reaction and thoughts of Dan Rather and the director of the film at the premiere in Toronto. In the Critical reception section we cite reviews of the film. You may find the official review from The Hollywood Reporter and summarize it in the Critical reception section. Actually, if you're keen on citing critical opinion already, there are currently 13 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, 8 from major publications and sites you can start citing. Lapadite (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite, it seems to me that the current version leans way too far in the direction of favoring positive reviews. There were lots of negative reviews, and lots of negative stuff in many of the positive reviews. I left out my words "at best", since you found someone who really liked it, but it's misleading to make the whole paragraph sound positive when so many critics hated the film. At least some negative reviews ought to be included. "Mixed reaction" is the correct summary. MikeR613 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , One of WP's core policies is WP:Verifiability. Information needs to come from a reliable source, not WP:Original research. This is, again, unsourced. Our interpretation of aggregate scores is "mixed reviews", but you need to find reliable, neutral sources that summarize the overall reception and cite one. Lapadite (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Unverifiable?
The synopsis discusses "unverifiable" documents. They were very verifiable, it just happens that they were fake. Why can't anyone bring themselves to use the word "fake" or "forged." They were written with Microsoft Word. 98.166.244.234 (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As much as I agree with you that they were undeniably faked, they were by definition "unverifiable" because they were fake. HubcapD (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Response from CBS
Gil Schwartz, the chief spokesman for CBS who is depicted in the film, said "It's astounding how little truth there is in Truth. There are, in fact, too many distortions, evasions and baseless conspiracy theories to enumerate them all. The film tries to turn gross errors of journalism and judgment into acts of heroism and martyrdom. That's a disservice not just to the public but to journalists across the world who go out every day and do everything within their power, sometimes at great risk to themselves, to get the story right."

This quote was widely reported and belongs in the article - at the beginning of the Response from CBS section, as it was made days before the ad ban. The quote is not the view of one person - he is the chief spokesman for CBS. What would be WP:UNDUE is having more than half the section giving the response to the response - referencing the "tone and the emotional nature" of the response - which doesn't even make sense without the quote. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the version Gothicfilm opposes; this is the version he preferred. I said in edit summaries, "WP:QUOTEFARM. Response from both parties is noted and summarized. Giving more detail/quotes from one or the other is WP:UNDUE; readers who want more info click on the source" and "View of one person is given too much "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, [or] juxtaposition of statements; WP:UNDUE". Gil Schwartz is still stating his opinion, he did not say "this is the view of CBS". I still think it's undue (per depth of detail, quantity of text and the fact that the THR article also states "some at CBS"). Lapadite (talk)
 * Interesting that you don't use my last version as my "preferred" version. My preferred version is here. It leaves out the last sentence of the full quote seen at the top of this thread, though an argument could be made for including it. And note that you talk about a quotefarm when your version gives twice as much text to quotes about the response to the response. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, the quotefarm claim looks like a red herring. Since the movie came out and it was intended to be controversial, I hope the article can at least stay balanced. As it is now, the Response sections are barely sourced, which should be fixed. But the sources also ignore the problems of Trial by media, IMO. The film's producers said "The events depicted in Truth are still vigorously debated, and that’s a good thing... We hope people will see the film and judge for themselves." Judge? --Light show (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes of course you do. The aforementioned version (Gothicfilm's) used a long quotation crowding the section and giving more weight to/emphasizing a comment from one person instead of neutrally representing CBS's response (which notably includes the ban) largely with paraphrase. Especially when he moved the long quote to the beginning of the section. That does not scream WP:NPOV. WP:QUOTEFARM ("article" replaced by "section") → "Long quotations crowd the actual [section] and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both." Lapadite (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No response to the fact that Lapadite talks about a "quotefarm" when his version gives twice as much quantity of text to quotes about the response to the response over the response itself. Lapadite is still complaining about an old version which I have since edited down, ignoring my post just above giving my last version. Also note that more than a week before the ban was reported, two other editors also put in the first part of the CBS spokesman's quote on October 7 and 8, including User:MAlvis, and Lapadite reverted both of them, even though that quote has been widely reported in multiple sources. It seems Lapadite was determined to whitewash the CBS response. Four editors clearly see value in letting the quote speak for itself. No one supports Lapadite's position. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. There have been new versions since the one I posted, of course, including mine. Since Light show commented on something pertaining to the former version, that's what I responded to; the quote farm was about your first edit/revert. The October 7 & 8 edits were not adhering to NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, emphasizing the opinion of one person, who's not a critic, in the critical reception section. That has obviously been fixed. By the way, you two coming along as tag team to another article I'm a regular editor of is just wrong. Like, total synth, or undue, or verifiability something. P.S I suggest commenting less on editor and more on content being discussed. Anyway, I believe that response section is fairly represented now as all significant reports pertaining to it have been included and balanced, with the aforementioned policy in mind. Note that the latest edits kept your second, more appropriate revision, Gothicfilm, no need to go on about it any longer. Lapadite (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You were claiming I preferred an old version before Light show made any comment here. And either of us editing a page you're "a regular editor of is just wrong"? You should read WP:OWN and WP:AGF. Then you "suggest commenting less on editor and more on content being discussed"? Perhaps you should follow your own advice. What's wrong is your misleading statements. In your last edit summary you claimed to put events in order: full picture, order of reports, but you left out the statement by Andrew Heyward, president of CBS News at the time of the scandal, and you added a report about Leslie Moonves that was not a statement from CBS, but an anonymous source from the film - a fact you left out - the cited source actually said A source close to the film says Moonves wasn't a fan of Truth, but, ever the gentleman, he didn't ask producers for major changes - and you moved down the Schwartz statement, which came out more than a week before the report of the ban. Yet you claimed to be putting things in order. It appears that having been frustrated in keeping that quote out, now you want to bury it. The most widely reported aspect of this is the Schwartz statement. I'm restoring it to the top of the section where it belongs, as it actually came more than a week earlier, and adding the Heyward statement. It should be obvious that a "Response from CBS" section should emphasize the two actual statements from the CBS people involved, and not emphasize statements from "A source close to the film" purporting to report what CBS said. The source at CBS saying it was not planning on publicly condemning the film does not appear to be intended as a public statement. If you think the section is now too long, you can remove that and/or the non-statement about Moonves, as neither is very notable. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess the sarcasm in "just wrong. Like, total synth, or undue, or verifiability something", in reference to both you and Light show's recent WP:ASG issues, wasn't as obvious as I thought. I wasn't claiming anything, let it go. I didn't "leave out" anything, in one edit I didn't slap on every single negative quote which you seem to prefer, because of - again - WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT. You again rearranged the section so that individual negative quotes are emphasized; please do read the policies linked. The section is in order of events/reports now, per sources cited, and I removed redundancy (i.e., quotes stating the same thing) which was also giving even more undue weight. Please also read WP:PARAPHRASE linked in the edit summary. My concern as an editor is editing with policies like WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT in mind, not pushing my pov in an article. If you say the Schwartz comment came out before all other reports cited, then stop throwing out baseless accusations and just cite the article that was published before the other cited sources (including the one published in September). Lapadite (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you admit you're being sarcastic. Very constructive. What you did not admit is you have now taken out part of the Heyward quote "Only Hollywood could come up with that." The Schwartz quote "The film tries to turn gross errors of journalism and judgment into acts of heroism and martyrdom" goes right to the heart of the matter. You need to get WP:CONSENSUS to remove those quotes. WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV do not give you free license to whitewash the reaction of the only actual people quoted on the record from CBS - both of whom are depicted in the film. Their reaction to it is much more notable than the leaked speculation from September on Moonves, sourced from a source close to the film. An anonymous source close to the film does not have equal weight on reporting the reaction of CBS. Go get consensus saying otherwise and stop edit warring. The other option is to remove the anonymous September statements for being the trivia that they are. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , are you listening? You are adding unnecessary info or parts of quotes and close paraphrasing, such as the "but being a gentleman" and "Some at CBS News are angered by" sentences (the latter of which is not even a close paraphrase, it's plagiarism). You're copy/pasting lengthy quotations that are also redundant, giving more WP:UNDUE weight - such as "because of inaccuracies and distortions in the movie", which is already conveyed in the quote "It's astounding how little truth there is in Truth. There are, in fact, too many distortions, evasions and baseless conspiracy theories to enumerate them all". These edits do not comply with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, chiefly. Is that not clear enough, or should we take it to the NPOV noticeboard? Lapadite (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between being disgruntled and angry. "Some at CBS News are angered by" did not add any text to the pre-existing sentence, and the whole sentence can be put in a quote if necessary to avoid "plagiarism". You talk about UNDUE, and then you put in all sorts of less important information. The reaction of the only two people quoted from CBS - both of whom are depicted in the film - is not to be weighed against anonymous sources. I already said go get consensus saying otherwise. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, there are some unnecessary long quotes and redundant phrasing, such as "heroism" and "martyrdom." So it could use some tightening. BTW, most of the producer's response to CBS, is not a response to CBS at all, but a plug for the movie telling us why they made it and why people should see it. The article should quote "neutral" reviews, not the producer's, LOL. --Light show (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I trimmed the producers' response section. Is there a preference for either of these two statements in their response: "filmmakers were "attracted by the intersection of news, politics and business and the story's status as one of the first to be undone by an Internet outcry" or "It’s a fascinating story at the intersection of politics, media and corporate America" ? Lapadite (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither is a response to CBS. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. Either one is ok, but not in the "Response to CBS" section. If anywhere, it could go the Production section to give the producer/director's reasons for making the film. Note how it was done for W. The part about the film being "undone" (it just came out) and being "fascinating" should be trimmed however, and any promo phrasing should naturally be left out. Keep it dry, factual and neutral.--Light show (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I trimmed it. Fixed a quote incorrectly attributed to one producer, Fischer. Lapadite (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is misleading to say "Yes" when you ignored Light show's main point - that this did not belong in the Response section. In fact you made it a bit longer. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's misleading to say I "made it a bit longer" in reference to Light show's point that the "It’s a fascinating story at the intersection..." does not belong in the response section, as I'd already removed it from the section; and the section being slightly longer now is due to fixing the misattribution of a quote to Fischer, clarified by attributing it to the "statement by producers", plus the addition of a relevant supplementary quote from the "statement by producers". So that is misleading. Lapadite (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You ignored Light show's main point - Either one is ok, but not in the "Response to CBS" section. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary
The Atlantic has a very long piece on the film. Among the observations is a suggestion that this page is being edited by the film makers. That suggests there is a wide perception of bias, COI, or POV pushing going on here. I haven't looked at the editing history but it's a problem when the national press criticize an article. Fix it. 2602:306:C4D3:A530:9E:D2CF:82AC:879A (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw the Atlantic essay, and I looked at the edit history. I have not seen the film, but I'm concerned about the way that we report the plot of this film, because as I understand it, the film focuses on Mapes's perspective, yet describing the plot from her and Rather's perspective alone would paint an inaccurate picture of how the real-life events actually happened. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

See MOS:PLOT (including the "further information" note at the top) for how to write plot summaries. Lapadite (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

My problem with the plot section is that only one sentence is actually plot. The rest is backstory on the conflict. Tysto (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Scrap it - put it on junk heap
I'd say the whole article should be basically scrapped. If somebody other than a publicity agent wants to start a new version, then fine. It's utterly tainted. When a full-blown article in The Atlantic says so, it's good enough for me. 38.131.227.248 (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the only contentious section is the Plot section, and right now that section doesn't appear to be problematic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Reception?
Shouldn't there be a section on how the movie is doing? I see that in other movies. MikeR613 (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , it is the "Critical reception" section. Are you looking for something more? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah - they usually describe how much money it's made, not just what critics thought, no? MikeR613 (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that according to Boxofficemojo.com, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=truth.htm, the film had a limited opening in 6 theaters October 16, 2015, making $66,232, and a wider opening in 1,122 theaters October 30, 2015, making $875,935, for a total of $1,126,512. I'll add it, but I don't really know how to do it properly - someone should fix it. MikeR613 (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm...
I wonder if this will be anything like The Insider (film)? - the WOLF  child  22:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, just not as fact-based......HubcapD (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC) 01:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Page Six cite
, Page Six is a gossip site.,, , ,. It is not a quality source. The Hollywood Reporter's BO info is already sourced in #Release. Lapadite (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This refs the film being described as "bombing" at the box office. Page Six is clearly reliable for that statement. Even if it weren't we have many, many additional refs supporting the statement. We could add CNN, Mediaite,etc... So the reliablity (and notability) of the statement are not in question. Remove Page Six if you can get agreement at WP:RSN that it is not reliable for the statement. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * And by the way, the box office gross hasn't even met the marketing budget yet...classic box office bomb. When calculating a marketing budget, the rule of thumb is to spend 50 percent of the rest of the production costs (pre-production, filming and post-production) [source: Vogel]. So if a movie costs $15 million to make, you'll need an additional $7.5 million to sell it. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed Page Six, but restored the descriptor with 5 refs. More than sufficient. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The Hollywood Reporter article gives a lot of noteworthy info on the October box office, and gives notable context to films discussed, including this one, and that is reported in the section. "__ bombed" isn't useful. If content in an unreliable site is supported by reliable sites, then you cite reliable sites.
 * Sure, and original research is irrelevant. Lapadite (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Bombed is useful, clearly notable, and extremely well referenced. There is no policy based reason for removal. By the way, what original research has been inserted in the article? I see none but perhaps I missed it. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Budget
The production costs for Australia are not the full costs for the film. $9.6 is only ref'd for the Australian costs. This relates to the Australian government's financial support of the Australian portion of the film. That would not involve post-production costs. The director's comments on less than $15 million are indicative of that. 22:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there any way to find out what this film actually cost? How do people do that? MikeR613 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

no critique on casting the attractive Blanchette as Mapes?
Mapes was not exactly 'lovely' by objective standards. Yeah, this is Hollywood, blah-blah, but still come RS review should have mentioned this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.47.12 (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)