Talk:White People (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

"I'm using Hsu's review to summarize the article"[edit]

@Yanping Nora Soong: I'm using Hsu's review to summarize the article—no, your summarizing Hsu's interpretation of the movie, which is inappropriate POV and undue weight for the lead. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His construction of the movie matches a lot of other reviewers'. There seems to be enough consensus among reviewers (have you actually read the reviews?) that "conversations that look like interventions" would be an appropriate summary, as long as we quantify who said it. Also, I used Zimmerman's review to source part of the movie (which many other reviewers commented on) as a notable example of one such conversation/intervention. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So write a proper summary and leaves the reception to the reception section. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add, Hua Hsu is a reviewer representing The New Yorker. I don't know how much more reliable or more prestigious you can get, than to source literary criticism from The New Yorker. This is not undue. Citing a review from Podunk Magazine or Schoolyard Soundbites to summarize the article in the lead would be undue. Not The New Yorker. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How else would you write a sourced summary? from a review from a prestigious literary magazine, of course. Also, I'm trying not to be excessively personal, but all of this seems easy for you to say when you don't even research any sources yourself. Please, please, feel free to write an alternative summary, if you can find the sources to back it. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Of course you wouldn't. This is an encyclopaedia, not a prestigious literary magazine. Read a few recognized articles (GAs and FAs) and you'll see that that's not how things are done (and for very good reason). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced information is in the body. As the lead summarizes the body, it requires no further cites (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). So you summarize what's in the body without giving any undue weight to prestigious award-winning persons or publications. The reader of the lead wants to know what the subject of the article is about, not a name-dropping list of prestigious whatsits. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using "prestigious" and "undue" in the same sentence when referring to a source is kind of an oxymoron. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've demonstrated throroughly you have no idea what you're talking about. You can stop now. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]