Talk:Raiders of the Lost Ark

message: “Actors Clint Eastwood and Toshiro Mifune, and the James Bond character were the basis of Jones' own” ???? 86.179.71.216 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that the character Indiana Jones was based in part on actors Clint Eastwood and Toshiro Mifune, as well as the character James Bond. —Matthew  / (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence makes no sense. 

message: The critical reception in the lead currently singles out specific aspects that were supposedly praised by critics (). MOS:FILMLEAD says that . That guideline was the result of this discussion, if anyone's interested. The summary statement in the lead doesn't seem to be supported by the RT critics' consensus, as is the case for many other film articles, or any other source supporting this type of summary statement. Unless sources are found that , these cherrypicked aspects should be removed from the lead or alternatively be replaced by those mentioned in the RT critics' consensus. Throast  me! (talk | contribs) 19:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That type of lede where "the film is praised for (list of stuff) but criticized for (list of more stuff)" is really poor poor writing for film articles, and a problem overall. Masem (t) 17:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that it is a chronic problem in film articles, I have no doubt that these summary statements are written by well-intentioned editors. What needs to be understood is that WP:SUMMARY does not supersede WP:SYNTH. Determining a global critical consensus ourselves solely based on the select few critical reviews featured in the reception section is a form of original research. This type of analysis, i.e. the determination of a broad critical consensus, needs to be done by a reliable secondary source, not by Wikipedia editors themselves. Throast  me! (talk | contribs) 17:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, putting together a summary from individual reviews is WP:SYNTH. The current sentence is written as a general overview not mentioned/cited in the Reception section. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

text: -How so? Both are the result of Wikipedia editors looking at individual reviews to determine what critics generally praised/criticized. It might be your opinion that your synthesis is more accurate, but it is synthesis nonetheless. Re: criticizing work that others do; If you can't take criticism on Wikipedia, you might as well stop editing. Mind you, I did not just criticize, but I also suggested a reasonable alternative, the "basic-ass and uncomprehensive" RT critics' consensus. Taking issue with an unverifiable claim about the general critical response to one of the most popular works in film history, prominently featured in the lead section, is not "pedantry". Throast  me! (talk | contribs) 20:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Synthesis in the lead section

message: This text is inaccurate
> On a beach near Mauna Kea, Lucas and Spielberg discussed their next projects.
The cited source here refers to the beach at the Mauna Kea resort:
> What beach was that? At the Mauna Kea. On the big island
> A white-sand beach? White-sand beach. 
The article "the" indicates Spielberg was talking about "the Mauna Kea" rather than "Mauna Kea". See: Mauna_Kea_Beach_Hotel. 2601:602:8980:7310:D169:915E:26B6:4C6E (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in discussing Production