This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2016.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles
Re NinjaRobotPirate's continued deletions/reversions of a summary introduction, it's important to keep in mind that, per MOS:FILM, "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources." The simple statement that critics are mixed about this film is immediately supported by the following sourced reactions that are indeed mixed. If there is disagreement with the "overall critical response," that should be discussed here, where we can build consensus. You will see, by looking at other wikipedia articles, that these intro sentences are common, and I do not feel the need to hunt down ten to prove this point. Without the intro sentence, we do a disservice to the reader, who may take the first critical reaction to the film to be the major theme. This is not the case in this film, where critical reactions are mixed.
Further reversions without discussion here will be referred to WP:ANI. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you seriously just cite the reviews themselves as citations for your statement? None of those sources say the film received mixed reviews. This is the very definition of synthesis. You are taking three sources that do not say the film received mixed reviews, coming to your own conclusion, and citing them as backing it up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there are reviews in authoritative sources that are clearly bad, and others that are clearly positive, or indeed reviews that offer both clear praise and clear criticism, that should be citation enough. This is not OR, simply summarising externally sourced material in our own words, which is the core competence of an encyclopaedia MapReader (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. Every film would then have "mixed reviews". We don't determine ourselves whether the reviews are positive, mixed, or negative. A reliable source does that for us. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, many film articles refer to 'positive reviews' or 'critical acclaim', hopefully because this reflects the balance of reviews rather than because most such articles are written and edited by fans of the film. Rarely are such statements explicitly sourced - they summarise authoritative comment just as does the rest of WP's content. MapReader (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And when it's not properly sourced, it should be removed. Sources must explicitly say "it received mixed reviews" for this not to be synthesis. When people guess at whether it received mixed reviews, positive reviews, or whatever, this is original research, and it is forbidden by policy. You may think it received mixed reviews, and I may think it received positive reviews. Or maybe I think there's no consensus at all. However, that doesn't matter; what matters is what reliable sources say. If they don't say anything, Wikipedia doesn't say anything, either. The burden to properly source this is on the person who wants to say that the film received a certain kind of reception. Wikipedia policy explicitly says that when it's unsourced, it can removed and should not be re-added. It doesn't matter how obvious someone thinks this is. This is not rocket science, and it's spelled out in policy (WP:V, WP:BURDEN, WP:SYNTH). WP:NOTSYNTH is a nice little essay, but it has absolutely no bearing on this because: 1) it's an essay, 2) these statements are not properly sourced (remember, sources must explicitly say that it received mixed reviews), 3) this is textbook synthesis (combining citations to make a conclusion not found in any of them). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Jupiter Ascending, to which I have not contributed. It's not at all true that "every film would have mixed reviews." But aside from that, I don't believe you're hearing me. I see that you are here to "win," and that you are a determined edit warrior who disdains coming to the talk page without the threat of an ANI referral. And you're an admin, apparently. This is why people who come to Wikipedia to contribute in good faith leave. I will unwatch this article and let you retain ownership. Cheers and goodbye. GetSomeUtah (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GetSomeUtah: go ahead and file a complaint at ANI if you think it warranted. But that doesn't change the fact that your citations don't back up what you added. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NinjaRobotPirate is correct. It is considered synthesis to take individual reviews and to claim an overall outcome. WP:SYN says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." While summarizing can be performed in general, WP:STICKTOSOURCE says, "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." All that needs to be done for the "Critical reception" section is to present each review, though I would drop eFilmCritic as unreliable, especially compared to the other three reviews. (We can discuss that separately, though.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I want to "third" and expand upon what NinjaRobotPirate has said. Just to make clear, saying that the reviews are "mixed" is inappropriate unless there is a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia which actually says that. While that statement might never have been challenged and might have remained in the article indefinitely, now that it has been challenged (as evidenced by your disagreement, above) then Wikipedia policy says (in the BURDEN section of the Verifiability Policy) that it should be added back in once removed unless a reliable source can be provided to support it. NRP is absolutely correct that to count or evaluate individual reviews and then come up with a summary or evaluation of them is prohibited original research (of which synthesis is a particular type). Slightlymad 13:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe NinjaRobotPirate and Slightlymad need facts spelled out for them. You're not making conclusions with sourced facts, you're stating sourced facts. I have been a registered user for 12 years, and I have NEVER encountered this. This is CRAZY to me.
