Talk:Battlefield Earth (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battlefield Earth (film) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Featured article star Battlefield Earth (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 12, 2008.

Contents

[edit] Third

I read the article, and I think the overall quality is good, but also pretty harsh. Even though I think John and his companions deserved it a bit, I also think that the article could be toned down some day after it's been on the Main Page.
The only part that I would like to change right now however, is the third sentence: "It was a commercial and critical disaster and has been widely criticized as one of the worst films ever made". Perhaps we shouldn't put it there. It's a bit too rough, not to say unnecessary. The movie and Travolta are already disgraced enough in the rest of the article, so I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that the movie was commercially and critically disastrous. If I hear no objections, I will remove that sentence within 24 hours. I've also contacted Raul about this. Cheers, Face 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of this sentence, and think that the blurb is fine, as well as the article's WP:LEAD. This was gone over in quite detail through the review process, most recent of which was the WP:FAC discussion. To this day the film doesn't have too great of a rating at Rotten Tomatoes, not to mention that it is listed prominently on multiple "worst of..." lists. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I also think it's reasonable to leave it in, given that the film has, as Cirt says, featured on numerous "worst of..." lists. Its "worst of" status is, after all, one of the things that gives this film its particular notability. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Cirt that there's nothing wrong with the WP:LEAD. Except for that sentence. I also agree that the article shows considerable efforts at gaining neutrality, but I still think that the article goes a bit over the top with its use of strong quotes, like: "as entertaining as watching a fly breathe", "a cross between Star Wars and the smell of ass", "a Scientology stinkburger", "God above, it's bad. Sweet baby Jesus, it's bad.", et cetera. Those are of course amusing and sensational cries, but in the end, they are empty, and could be seen as article filler. I know this is not a good time to do something about it, so that's why I considered the subtle removal of one sentence in the intro instead. - Face 21:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, you guys opposed, so unless someone supports me, I'll leave this article alone. Thanks for your comments, and I hope to join you patrolling the recent changes on May 12. Cheers, Face 21:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
While working to get this article up to WP:FA status with ChrisO (talk · contribs), I searched through probably over 150 reviews of the film. I added a bunch of quotes with some sort of positive perspective on the film, but there just really wasn't much there, at all. Cirt (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also this comment from Raul654 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, reality check here. What's so important about the Washington Post quote "A million monkeys with a million crayons would be hard-pressed in a million years to create anything as cretinous as Battlefield Earth"? The Critical reception section of this article has become an orgy of swooning quotes from witty writers. It is about twice as long as I would expect a section of that type to be, for any film, good, bad or average. It gives undue weight to the extent to the point that the article reads like its purpose is to quantify just how bad the film was, not inform readers about it. If I had encountered this on FAC, it would have been a firm oppose from me in its current state.

I'm not supposing that bad reviews should not be quoting bad reviews, or denying the sparseness of positive ones, but this gives us the freedom to be selective in what we use. Even the most worthy of the critic quotes delivers less useful information than the reference to Rotten Tomatoes, the Razzies, the DFWFCA award, etc. I suggest removing all quotes which do not directly comment on the film, except for a possible select few of the strongest worded reviews from more authoritative sources. For example it's fine to quote Jonathan Ross saying "Everything about Battlefield Earth sucks. Everything. The over-the-top music, the unbelievable sets, the terrible dialogue, the hammy acting, the lousy special effects, the beginning, the middle and especially the end." but irrelevant that he says "God above, it's bad. Sweet baby Jesus, it's bad. By all that is holy and sacred on the Earth, this is a bad, bad, bad film.". Ross is a comedian, not a journalist. He says these things all the time and the article is about a rather awful film, not an homage to the work of the likes of Ross. BigBlueFish (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The credibility of Jonathan Ross's review depends very much on context, but I believe the Ross quote was from the BBC Film Programme, which he presents not as a comedian but as a journalist and serious movie critic. I'd personally expect that the quote in question comes from this show (I think I vaguely recall watching the episode), but I've not checked. Adacore (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the quote is cited to an article by Ross in tabloid newspaper The Mirror. Besides, the wording is clearly chosen to entertain more than inform. Again I ask: what information does this add to the article? BigBlueFish (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed the second portion of the quote from Jonathan Ross. Cirt (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the third sentence should be altogether removed, but instead of it linking to the page List_of_films_considered_the_worst, which has warnings at the top of the page, offer some citations of actual sources, such as Rotten Tomatoes (as listed above). It is ridiculous for this to be a featured article if the third sentence bases its claim on a Wikipedia page that is unverified. Macduffman (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of citations listed later on in the article for that factual info. Cirt (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually there are also 2 citations backing up that info right at the end of the sentence in the lead in addition to the citations later in the article. Cirt (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following passages from the article:

  • Jon Stewart put it even more succinctly on The Daily Show when he described the movie as "a cross between Star Wars and the smell of ass".[1]
  • Rita Kempley of The Washington Post commented: "A million monkeys with a million crayons would be hard-pressed in a million years to create anything as cretinous as Battlefield Earth."[2]
  • Richard Roeper placed the film at number five on his list of "40 movies that linger in the back chambers of my memory vault like a plate of cheese left behind a radiator in a fleabag hotel".[3] Roeper commented, "The real danger of Scientology is that John Travolta may someday make another movie based on the writings of L. Ron Hubbard."[3]

What they all have in common is that they don't provide any critical comment, and their main purpose is to entertain. None of the sources rank highly in weight compared to some of the others on their page, so they should not be missed, especially with the need to improve the length of the article and that section. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this removal of sourced material, but will deal with these changes after WP:TFA day. Too much vandalism and changes going on to address this now productively. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Verifiability is not the only criterion for including information in an article. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The article was no more effective in conveying the nature of the reviews when those quotes were there, and had no extra information about the points faulted by critics or anything else for that matter which could possibly justify their encyclopedic worth.
For the record, another quote has been removed by an anonymous user:
  • In her book Celebrity Tantrums!: The Official Dirt, Lisa Brandt called the film a "Scientology stinkburger".[4]
I disagree about this one because it's the only one that makes reference to criticisms relating to scientology, which goes on to receive comment by the producers in this article. On the other hand the source is hardly authoritative. Perhaps another more suitable source could be found (I'm sure I saw at least one other Scientology reference in the full version of one of the other sources). However, I can see sufficient justification to re-include that quote. Not so for the others. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. The quote from Jon Stewart on The Daily Show illustrates a mention on television in popular culture. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    This is a multi-million dollar film starring John Travolta. Does it surprise anybody that they talked about it on TV? BigBlueFish (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. The quote from Rita Kempley of The Washington Post is uniquely worded and interesting, and was highlighted subsequently in Entertainment Weekly. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    If the Post published something uniquely worded and interesting, maybe it should appear in the article on The Washington Post. Seriously, this article is not short of interesting things to say. It is too long. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. The quote from Richard Roeper is a quote from a notable film critic, and is necessary to illustrate the film's inclusion in multiple "worst of" lists. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    The underlying theme here seems to be that the notability of the quotee justifies the quote. This is not how Wikipedia works. You could easily go through Roeper's articles and his books and find loads of statements about other movies, but they don't appear in those respective Wikipedia articles. His list, by the way, is not a "worst of" list; there is no indication that it is supposed to be exhaustive. In fact, it is clearly named in order to entertain, and seeing as there are plenty of other more objective rankings of this film, this is no longer notable. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All these quotes were considered in the WP:FAC process, and were included as part of a balance, along with positive information later on in the same subsection. In order to maintain balance, if these were to be removed, we should add other quotes from critical reviews. However I do not think that these should be removed. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the quotes discussed were mentioned individually in the FAC, and FA status doesn't preclude the potential for improvement in any aspect of quality. I would welcome other, more relevant, quotes, but I disagree that they are needed for balance. I think you have a distorted view of WP:UNDUE. Balance does not require there to be amounts of text proportionate to the point of view. This article, with or without those quotes, makes it perfectly clear that there were hardly any good reviews and lots of bad reviews, which include the representation of the film as a notable flop, one of the worst films of all time, a universal failure, the subject of ridicule in the critical arena and popular culture. What then do these quotes add? BigBlueFish (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
My rationale above still stands, your rebuttal points notwithstanding, though they are interesting. I still think that the mention on The Daily Show is worthwhile to keep in the article, as is the quote from The Washington Post, later selected for inclusion in a discussion by Entertainment Weekly, and a quote from Richard Roeper, a noted film critic. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Cirt. The Daily Show comment is worthwhile as a representative television review, the Washington Post quote was widely quoted at the time as a definitive comment on the film, and Roeper's prominence as a serious film critic makes him a very logical choice for a quote. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Cirt. These cites were all fully considered and approved during the FAC process. Messing with them now strikes me as knee-jerk WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 04:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT however tenuously that essay is invoked. I am trying to address perceived problems with the article, and I would thank you for giving this due respect. The other editors have been perfectly reasonable about the content. With phrases like "messing with them now" I suggest you review WP:CCC and WP:OWN. The cites were not "all fully" considered or "approved" unless there is some discussion that I missed; there was some discussion on the suitability of the weight given, the conclusion of which was eventually that it was okay, but no specific reviews were mentioned.
The main problem is that the section is too long. Partly as a result of this it is also poorly organised, especially at the beginning, and makes the importance of the more questionable quotes unclear. At best, it is borderline quality writing for an FA. This should be resolved whether or not it can be expedited by cutting out redundant, possibly undue quotes.
Following ChrisO's comment, I agree that there is a place for the Daily Show quote, which would become clearer with a better organised section. However the other two seem to continue to be justified by the quality of the review. This is not Wikiquote, nor is it Rotten Tomatoes. The other numerous quotes are witty enough to convey the fact that it was popular among critics to mock the film and compete for the most eloquent means of totally panning it.
If the Post quote was considered the definitive bad pan then this should be stated in the article, and possibly even moved to the lead to keep section lengths balanced. However, it seems to me that this title might go to the NYT.
Let me reiterate that following WP:UNDUE does not mean quoting lots of bad reviews because of the fact that there were lots. It is actually more effective to note the most significant ones, the statistics and so on, things that the section does fine without these quotes. Add quotes which are just a different way of saying the film was bad and it conveys the impression that the article's purpose is to revel in the funny jokes that the critics made. BigBlueFish (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We appear to be going in circles with this discussion, which is not productive. Myself, ChrisO (talk · contribs), and Bullzeye (talk · contribs) have all commented and expressed a sentiment to keep the current material in the Critical reception subsection. Cirt (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think coming to agree on one of the three points in question was going round in circles. Any circle-going is because you keep giving the same reasons to keep the quotes and I'm telling you that they (that is, "it made it past FAC", "it's interesting" and "the person who said it is important") are not self-sufficient reasons to say something in a Wikipedia article. Have I misinterpreted the rationale here or are these acceptable reasons to add length to an article? BigBlueFish (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have asked ChrisO (talk · contribs) for comment on this because at this point in time it seems that this discussion thread is beginning to be a waste of time, as three different editors feel that the material should remain in the article. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Rather than recruit meatpuppets in a discussion which is not a vote, you could always answer my simple binary query and maybe you could make that figure four. BigBlueFish (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
ChrisO (talk · contribs) is not a meatpuppet, he is an administrator on the English Wikipedia, but more importantly was a principle nominator on this article's WP:FAC, and thus his opinion is most certainly warranted. And for the record I have no idea where Bullzeye (talk · contribs) came to this article's talk page from. And my rationale above still stands, and I agree with the latest comments by Bullzeye and ChrisO. Cirt (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I despair. "My rationale above still stands". Am I right in summarising your rationale to be "it made it past FAC", "it's interesting" and "the person who said it is important" or not? It was a simple question, and answering it would save you, me and ChrisO a truckload of time. BigBlueFish (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
My rationale was last best described in summary by ChrisO (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well "the Washington Post quote was widely quoted at the time as a definitive comment on the film" is not how the quote is presented in the article or a sourced statement, and "Roeper's prominence as a serious film critic makes him a very logical choice for a quote" is not a rationale for a quote, it is a criterion for using a quote which adds something useful to the article. I also dispute the notion that "40 movies that linger in the back chambers of my memory vault like a plate of cheese left behind a radiator in a fleabag hotel" is the title of a serious piece of film criticism. BigBlueFish (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disaster

  • A tornado is a "disaster". An earthquake is a disaster. I'm not so sure one should be applying the word "disaster" to something as inconsequential as a bad Hollywood film. No one died from this movie, as appallingly bad as some felt it to be. Can we not find a better word? How about "disappointment"?Michael DoroshTalk 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "commercial failure and critical flop" is more accurate. Cirt (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Any film that singlehandedly takes down a studio or production company can be classified as a disaster in Hollywood parlance. The term is acceptable. See Heaven's Gate (film). Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Agree with Neapolitan Sixth (talk · contribs), but the wording has been changed and the current wording is fine. Cirt (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soon...

The copy I have of the paperback of the book has a large 'star' on the cover with "Soon to be a major motion picture". The printing date of that edition is fourteen years prior to the movie actually being made. If I could find the book (most of my books are in storage) it's too worn (I got it that way, used) to make a good scan for the article. If someone can find or scan a good image of that edition, I think it'd be an interesting addition to the pre-movie history. (I haven't seen the movie, don't really want to... I knew it'd stink the instant I saw that teaser pic of a clean-shaven Johnnie Goodboy Tyler.)

[edit] Non-notable

The article reads like a group of Wikipedians scoured the net looking for every single possible negative review of Battlefield:Earth to include. Yes, it is a crapfest, but I think the four paragraphs of negative reviews could be pared down to something more manageble.

For starters I've removed the reference to Lisa Brandt's book "celebrity tantrums: the official dirt." The book is no longer in print, and Brandt's sporadic writing for small community newspapers in the northeast does not qualify as notable under Wikipedia guidelines.

Feel free to remove other non-notable figures from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.133.231 (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We aren't attempting to write a Lisa Brandt biography or establish her as a notable person. What matters is that she had a reputable publisher. In print/out of print status is not relevant (if it were then a lot of featured articles on academic subjects would lose quite a lot of their citations). If you wish to check for accuracy you may request an interlibrary loan through your local public library. Bear in mind that this is already a featured article and has passed community review for neutrality and proper citations. If you think a new discussion is needed, suggest you open a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard or open an article content request for comment. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
So what you're basically saying is: this article has passed a fairly hefty review. Therefore any further changes to the article must be wrong, because it's already passed several reviews, and those reviews take primacy over any further potential edits. What an incredibly non-scientific way of looking at things!
You haven't addressed the basic fact of my edits, which is that the "critical reception" portion of the article reads like a grocery list of critical reviews, many of which add little to the discussion. I removed Brandt's comment first because it was the most obvious. I am certain more thorough combing of the article would yield more reviews which could similarly be deleted without a loss in encyclopedic quality.
Neither your cutesily anti-intellectual retort that we're not "attempting to write a Lisa Brandt biography" nor your inane process argument comparing out-of-print works of substantial academic merit with a tome titled "celebrity tantrums: the official dirt" address the fact that articles should be readable, smooth, clear, and concise, and that a grocery list of opinions from everyone who's ever been published by a reputable source does not make for encyclopedia reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.133.231 (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith here, my comment was not meant as a retort, but rather to educate. Please also be mindful of Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. Cirt (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I thank you for educating me in the subtleties of Wikipedia's codes and processes. Please re-read WP:Ignore and then respond to my central argument, which is how we can pare down the article to something cleaner, shorter, and more readable without sacrificing content or encyclopedic quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.133.231 (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that some of the more dubious sources should probably be removed and it's not like anyone doubts that this movie has been universally panned by critics. A relevant RfC has already been opened below questioning the necessity of quotation. However, you need to keep it a bit more civil. Ignore all rules only applies when it clearly helps the encyclopedia. Insulting other users never falls under this. I suggest you post any more suggestions in the RfC below. Sasquatch t|c 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Quotations of critical reviews

A user has requested comment on media, art, architecture or literature for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCmedia list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


Concerns regarding certain quotations of critical reviews of this film. 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by BigBlueFish

This article has attracted the concerns of a number of uninvolved editors that although the film is a universally accepted critical flop, ranking one of the worst received of all time, the section detailing the critical commentary goes too far and quotes some critics unnecessarily. The current state of the article has been primarily defended by Cirt (talk · contribs) and ChrisO (talk · contribs), the key editors responsible for the article's quality today and participants in the article' FA candidacy. I would like to see the comments of some other experienced editors with the benefit of a fresh look at the article.

My key concern, as discussed above, is with two particular quotes, both of which I feel are gratuitous:

  • Rita Kempley of The Washington Post commented: "A million monkeys with a million crayons would be hard-pressed in a million years to create anything as cretinous as Battlefield Earth."[2]
  • Richard Roeper placed the film at number five on his list of "40 movies that linger in the back chambers of my memory vault like a plate of cheese left behind a radiator in a fleabag hotel".[3] Roeper commented, "The real danger of Scientology is that John Travolta may someday make another movie based on the writings of L. Ron Hubbard."[3]

The reasons that I understand to have been put forward for their presence in the article are that the authors are notable, and that the comments are interesting. However, there are plenty of interesting comments by notable authors in the article, but they also offer encyclopedic substance (for example, criticising a technical point). The first quote has also been said to have been widely quoted; if this is why it is there then I'd like to see a source saying so. The second is also an example of a "worst films list" ranking; however there are already several more impressive, more serious examples of this.

The fact that every purpose of these quotes is fulfilled by others means that they simply make the article longer, give undue weight, or both. The lack of specific encyclopedic purpose enhances the impression that the article is simply revelling in the bad reviews like the plot summaries of many television episodes do, and this dilutes the credibility of purpose of the other quotes.

Other quotes have been questioned, including:

  • In her book Celebrity Tantrums!: The Official Dirt, Lisa Brandt called the film a "Scientology stinkburger".[5]

which has been deleted by other users twice, although I think it constitutes a valid example of the fact that critics picked up on the Scientology lists in their reviews. It is an example of how some unnecessary quotes can make others seem equally gratuitous to editors.

If we find that these quotes are all necessary to the article, how can we improve the section they are in? It is quite clear from the fact that it has attracted these comments several times independently that the tone of the section is not right, and does not deliver itself in a believably balanced style. I have already helped adjust the wording around one quotation to clarify what new information the quote embodies. Maybe we can do more in that respect. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Re:Coffeepusher: I totally agree with your comment on the tone of the quotes. That said, do you not think that the other quotes deliver this tone sufficiently? For the same reason that we avoid citing a million sources for a single fact even if several very good ones exist, not every good quote (which might help the article in the absence of others) should always be used, in the interest of succinct prose. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Re:Cirt: In the event that a nod from the Post or the author being a notable film critic is enough for a quote to remain in an article, and that the "40 films ..." list is comparable in reliability and importance to the other "worst of" lists, do you have any other ideas on how to improve the conciseness and informative tone of the section? BigBlueFish (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Re:Cirt again: At the risk of sounding uncivil, your attitude goes totally against the spirit of this project. Featured Article quality is not the final goal of Wikipedia articles. If you really believe this article is perfect and beyond improvement then please say so in plain English. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the spoof movie poster comes from the same source that is supposed to justify the notability of the monkey quote. Since I have no access to the source, could somebody confirm whether the quote is referred to elsewhere in the source? If not, the argument is void. The New York Times quote (which has critical substance and is already included in the article) is the only one given special attention. Can anyone explain why we should choose the monkeys quote out of that particular bunch of equal-sized fonted quotes, with special attention to WP:SYNTH? BigBlueFish (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Cirt

Both reviews are from sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V, so that is not in dispute. Both reviews are also from notable sources, The Washington Post and Richard Roeper, and give value to this article in discussing the manner in which film reviewers have critiqued the film. This article has undergone extensive review, and is one of the highest quality articles on Wikipedia as a Featured Article. I object to the removal of these quotes. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to BigBlueFish (talk · contribs), yes the quote from The Washington Post has been subsequently cited as a noteworthy quote, in:
"John Travolta Battlefield Earth", Entertainment Weekly, 2000-05-26, p. 9, Issue 542. 
Richard Roeper is a noted film critic and his critique is notable, not to mention the classification as a "worst of" 40 movies list. And the issue you mention of "undue weight" was actually also raised and addressed successfully at the WP:FAC discussion. If anything due to the proportion of negative/positive reviews that exist about this film, the subsection on critique of the film is underweighted and should actually include more, not less, critical reviews of the film. Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a 3 percent positive rating out of 114 reviews [1]. Metacritic gives the film a rating of 9 out of 100 - characterized as "Extreme dislike or disgust", based on an analysis of 33 reviews [2].Cirt (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In response to the comment below by Justallofthem (talk · contribs), seemingly unrelated to this particular RfC but rather about a different issue - I would simply say that the events described in the subsection Controversies-Scientology were described in the media in secondary sources at the time, and the information is verifiable to multiple sources. The various claims are presented, with the differing opinions also given and rebutted by the involved parties. This subsection of the article was indeed present prior to the WP:FAC discussion, in which the article was promoted. Cirt (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In response to Justallofthem, my comment was not meant to "disparage", merely to point out that this RfC is related to the subsection "Critical reception". And yes, I did immediately revert myself regarding the removal of material by Justallofthem, I believe that material was sourced at one point, I will endeavor to find the cite again. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: to BigBlueFish: I think the current state of the Critical reception section is currently of WP:FA quality, just like the rest of the article. Cirt (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: to BigBlueFish: I am not saying that the article is "perfect", simply that I respectfully do not agree with your assessment that the "Critical reception" subsection requires any improvement. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Justallofthem

On the whole, I agree with BigBlueFish that the extensive quoting of critical reviews is a bit over the top. I would not go so far as to call the article a "quote farm" of course but the Critical reception section comes close. I also see the article as serving as a vehicle for panning "all things Scientology". Example, featuring the ridiculous rumors spread by anti-Scientologists such as the alleged subliminal messages. Example, the entire Controversy - Scientology sub-section that leads off with an OR interpretation that there was something controversial about the rights holder, Author Services, and continuing with undue emphasis to further invented controversy based on scant and clearly biased sources, mainly two anti-Scientologists, Bunker and Wollersheim. In actual fact all we have is a pet project of Travolta that was produced by a questionable character (not a Scientologist) and that was a big flop. The rest is invented controversy. I do not think this project, as an encyclopedia, needs unduly forward invented controversy, let alone invent more. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Careful, big guy. I think my comment is clearly related to the topic. Could you please respond without trying to disparage first? Thanks. Oh, BTW, thanks for reverting yourself after you reverted my removal of unsourced material. Next time if you would please check the source before reverting me instead of after reverting me then I would appreciate that. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In response to a number of references and a general tone of "this article is FA, therefore it's all good and don't change it", I do not think it is the intent of FA review to enshrine a particular version of an article and such would be counter to the basic nature of this project. Therefore I think any argument made that relates to its FA status is specious. Whatever the consensus is here and now with the editors that are interested here and now will determine what belongs in the article and what does not. FA reviewers are of course welcome to come over here and express their opinions and notification of them is permissible if done in accordance with WP:CANVASS. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Coffeepusher

While I understand the consern about these quotes beeing "unencyclopedic" in the fact that they don't offer spacific critisism, I believe the tone of the quotes does add to the artcle. The fact that reputable critics would offer such analogies is so out of charicter that it validates how bad they thought the film was, and to a degree that other quotes would not be able to convey. Now I do agree with Justa... in the fact that FA status should not be a block for change, however we do need to recognise that if this is a FA, then the community has agreed that there are no grevious flaws within the article. The consensus of the community is that this article is well writen, so we should be cautious with any major changes, or sweeping critisism. I actually like the contriversy section, because it shows the real world fallout of this film (and shows how the film fits into a larger socieological context).Coffeepusher (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Beeblbrox

I like the quote from Rita Kempley, and I don't feel it's gratuitous. That it is not critical on a technical level is a good thing. Your average moviegoer is not going to walk out of the theatre talking about camera angles and so forth, they are going to be talking about whether they were entertained by the movie, whether they could form an emotional connection to the story the way you do when you see a great movie. Roeper has always rubbed me the wrong way, and there isn't much substance to the his quote, just that it is on his oddly named list, and I think the article would be better without it, given that it has already been established that it was on a great many "worst movies" lists. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved and clarified some stuff

On a related note, I move some non-controversial material out of the "Controversy" section and clarified the sub-headings of the controversies. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)