Talk:Redacted (film)

message: User:Alabamaboy wants to insert the following:
:So far, the movie has received mostly negative reviews,[7] while the movie's financial performance has not been up to expectations.[8]
The selective use of the loaded statement "mostly negative reviews" does not accurately reflect the cited 46%/54% split. A neutral statement would be something like "So far, the movie has received mixed reviews" The comment on "expectations" is also loaded POV - who exactly had these expectations? How do you know? Who said that it hasn't performed up to them? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with the use of mixed reviews (although the indicators given in the article, like Rotten Tomatoes, don't show mixed but instead negative reviews). Expectations, though, is NPOV. That info comes from a San Fran newspaper which talked to Brandon Gray, publisher of Box Office Mojo. Gray said the low per-theater ratio made the film a flop for DePalma. While that info is in the main section of this article, I felt using "flop" in the lead was too POV so I went with the generic "which was below industry expectations." A reliable source if given for this info and it should be kept.--Alabamaboy (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, compare this article to Southland Tales, which debuted on the same weekend as Redacted, and had an almost identical takings per box-office. It also received mixed reviews, however its Wikipedia article does not emphasise the negativity that this article does. Given the controversial nature of the film itself it's inevitable that this article will attract a large amount of POV, unfortunately. This film seems to be one that people either love or hate, and I expect people are going to be arguing over  the validity of the various figures and quotes for quite a while. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you--the article will attract a lot of attention both positive and negative. In fact, I deleted some POV vandalism here just an hour or so ago. But as long as the article provides both sides of how people view the film and backs up any info with reliable sources, I think we'll be okay. As for the other article Southland Tales, that movie article is actually much more complete than this one. This article needs sections on the Plot, Production, and Marketing (just as a start). Best,--Alabamaboy (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After some thought, I have deleted the phrase "industry expectations". Neither of the citations says anything about "industry expectations". I understand that you are trying to insert something about the financial performance and have written your own interpretation to be neutral. However, the  statement isn't explicitly supported by the citations - an attempt to '"go beyond" what is expressed in the sources' (WP:NOR). It also implies that there was some industry-wide consensus regarding the expected financial income, and as per the WP rules on consensus, you would have to provide a citation that this was indeed the case. Chris Bainbridge 18:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV in lead paragraph

message: This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 20:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "needs infobox" tag 

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDNWXgM9F70 1of3 21:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use and personality rights debate 

message: Of course we don't know what worldwide sales will be. But in the USA it clearly appears headed for the bomb list. According to BoxOfficeMojo, during the first three weeks after release it has grossed a total of $60,456 domestically (as of December 10th, 2007 -- while the film was released on November 16th, 2007.) That's pretty bad. I think it is very likely that this will be added to List of U.S. box office  bombs once it leaves the theaters. SunSw0rd (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The film only received a 15 theater limited release in the US; I added some text to the lead to clarify this. According to Boxofficemojo, only 5 theaters are still showing it. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the speculation that it could be added to that list is wrong; limited theater releases aren't considered eligible for the list (Phantom of the Opera was removed for this reason). Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bomb 

message: I removed this, it is very US centric and undue weight on the article (was repeated twice in article), whereas this movie has been released internationally only the opinion of 2 critics about  the box office success in the US is mentioned, if you want to maintain NPOV as required by wikipedia a wider range of opinions would be required, and the English wikipedia is not for the US only. Thisglad (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Catherine Elsworth isn't a notable critic. Her analysis doesn't hold much weight (as I noted above), but I preferred the lead to be correct and verifiable rather than incorrect and edit warring over it. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep the consensus language. See previous discussions above for reasoning.--Alabamaboy (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it seems others had noted that on this page that it is undue weight to mention the same negative criticism twice in the article, including the lead, this violates Wikipedia:NPOV Thisglad (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  according to WP:NPOV Jimbo Wales believes
   * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
    * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
    * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
I do not believe the views of these critics can be proven to be a majority viewpoint at this time Thisglad (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: the box office figures corroborate that the film 'bombed' at the box office. it is notable because de palma is a notable major motion picture director. this is not controversial: the reviews are properly sourced. i'm puzzled by the desire to redact properly sourced, notable information from this article. Anastrophe (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: following up on myself. i see that the box office criticism is listed both in the lede, and in the body. there's no need to have it in both places, not in this short an article. therefore, i've reversed myself and returned to thisglad's version. Anastrophe (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We've been over this. The previous wording led to obvious questions, like "Well, what was the industry expecting?" because the cited sources said nothing about industry expectations. Anyway, I've changed it again to "The United States limited theatrical release had a poor response at the box office." I hope this one is okay with everyone. However, the lead is now very US centric since it doesn't mention the rest of the world. I expect when the film's released in the UK and other English speaking nations early next year there will be plenty of new sources re. box office response. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with your rewording. As for the world box office, I searched and didn't find any numbers. Once the numbers are in, we'll add them.--Alabamaboy (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  negative criticism in lead 

message: I removed the following cite. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you removing just the blog source. Yes, blogs are not the best sources. But if the article is going to give info from this blog, then we should list the blog as the source. If you want to remove all that info also, then feel free to also remove the blog.--SouthernNights (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: blog as cite

message: Arid U., the guy sooting US soldiers at Frankfurt Airport claims he took the rape and killings for real.
While the clip has been deleted on youtube, it's initial headline, created by a female German language user, was "US-Soldaten vergewaltigen unsere Schwestern! Wacht auf oh Ummah!" ("US soldiers are raping our sisters awake oh Ummah!").
* "Die Macht falscher Propaganda" (German "The Power of False Propaganda").--87.145.3.159 (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be real Mahmudiyah killings. IQinn (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frankfurt shooter claims to have been motivated by Redacted clip on youtube 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Redacted (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071205194537/http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/11252007/gossip/pagesix/de_palma_iraq_flick_bombs_582058.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/11252007/gossip/pagesix/de_palma_iraq_flick_bombs_582058.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071214010545/http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/11162007/entertainment/movies/battle_scarred_600609.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/11162007/entertainment/movies/battle_scarred_600609.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Redacted (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110521230817/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1185714-redacted/ to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1185714-redacted/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110521230817/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1185714-redacted/ to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1185714-redacted/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Redacted (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011191332/http://weblogs.variety.com:80/thompsononhollywood/2007/09/redacted-in-ven.html to http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2007/09/redacted-in-ven.html
*Added  tag to http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071122/NATION/111220043/1002&template=printart
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified