Talk:Roger Ebert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Roger Ebert was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 4, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Roger Ebert, has edited Wikipedia as
Rebert (talk · contribs)

Contents

[edit] On films about African Americans

"He reacts very strongly to films about the lives of African Americans."

Reacts strongly how? Positively, negatively? And why? This statement seems quite out of place and is unsourced.

13 October 2006

[edit] The Rebert account was only active for two days

Note that Special:Contributions/Rebert only shows activity for two days in November 2004, and, of course, it is difficult to verify that this was really Mr. Ebert or just a good imposter. One might even ask if the "Notable Wikipedian" template is appropriate. 69.181.82.221 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Ebert was here!

I'd just like to point out that I am fairly sure Roger Ebert himself has edited this page. user:J.J.

Checking history, you seem to be right: User:Rebert {comments there not his}. Of course, there's nothing wrong with this whatsoever, as long as the end result is NPOV &c. It looks like they were useful entries, though.--Dhartung | Talk 17:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm skeptical that such a user is the true man. However, he has given praise to Wikipedia in the past (on his website, I believe). --AWF
I'm not sure either, although Ebert is known for being an active web user. Although I doubt he would credit a picture as "his own" picture. He shows up on Rotten Tomatoes once in awhile.--Amynewyork4248 16:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
He referenced Wikipedia from his "Nacho Libre" review. Aaрон Кинни (t) 09:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Looking at his edit history, it seems the majority of his contributions (which are only a few, during a two day stint) included providing images and a couple links. It has to be him. --Fightingirish 14:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Life

Does the link in the Critical Life section to TheaterHopper.com [1] really have a point? Ebert is a Pulitzer prize winner. I don't think TheaterHopper has anything interesting to say about Ebert. The opinion of someone with credentials in film criticism would be more valuable than a link to a rather weak comic strip. --24.159.243.214 07:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The only point is that there's been a push in Wikipedia for citing all opinions, and I thought that link had a good summary of Ebert's style of reviewing v. someone like Roeper. If you have a better source, use it. - Lifefeed 15:22, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
I understand. I think the opinion is valid and interesting, but if TheaterHopper is the only source we can find, I'm afraid I think it should just be removed. TheaterHopper isn't nearly authoritative enough to be encyclopedic about this issue — a better source is required. Unfortunately I couldn't find a good source myself. Many years ago there was an amusing exchange between Roger and Gene concerning populism vs. elitism. After Gene asserted that he was more populist than Roger, Roger replied that his film criticsm was more populist and more cerebral — he had Gene surrounded. --165.189.91.148 17:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I moved the "pop culture trivia" section over to Siskel & Ebert where it's more appropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 00:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bit role?

Someone said Ebert had a bit role in Stranger Than Paradise. Poker player. any confirmation? GangofOne 06:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

If so, he fails to disclose it in his review. Nor does IMDb confirm. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

How the heck can you be a Roman Catholic and an athiest? Pardon my ignorance (as I'm neither Catholic nor athiest). UndeniablyJordan 20:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"I was raised Catholic, so of course I'm now an atheist." - Bob Odenkirk. - MrBook 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Jordan, one cannot possibly be both atheist and Catholic. The Odenkirk quote is a joke, meaning to say that he found the beliefs and practices of Catholicism so off-putting and ridiculous that he ended up rejecting the idea of God and religion completely. It's actually a variation of a Woody Allen joke about being raised Jewish. (And no, before you ask, you can't be both an atheist and a practicing Jew at the same time, either.) -- Minaker

It's a little different with Jews, because "Jew" is used as an ethnic term as well as a religious term, so therefore it is possible to be a Jewish atheist, as Woody Allen would freely admit to being. "Catholic," on the other hand, is almost always used as a strictly religious term, and therefore "Catholic atheist" is usually thought to be an oxymoron. In my experience, people who were raised Catholic but no longer believe or practice refer to themselves as ex-Catholics. But nonreligious Jews generally still call themselves Jews, and are regarded as such not just by Jewish tradition itself, but by society as a whole. marbeh raglaim 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The current article makes no mention of Roger's religious upbringing or current beliefs. Anyone have any citable info? - Mcasey666 11:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think religion is a big part of who he is as a public figure, so it makes sense that it doesn't appear in the article. But he seems to indicate in his review for Passion of the Christ that he is an ex-Catholic. However, I've never seen him identify as an atheist, and he often comes off as somewhat spiritual in outlook--or at the very least respectful of religious beliefs. marbeh raglaim 20:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw him say in his own words that he considers himself an Agnostic. He said it on ABC in an interview where he was talking about the Passion of the Christ controversy. However, for the life of me, I can't remember what show he was on.-unsigned, December 18, 2006 11:21 PM

Really now...? Doesn't the article say he's a "devouted Roman Catholic" right now? I dunno, but most of the "Atheist/Agnostic" talks from him seem a bit satirical. Anyways, I dont' think it really matters, it's just something that should be pointed out. IronCrow 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Agnostic makes sense. But bear in mind that "agnostic" is a very broad term. I've even on occasion heard religious people identify by the term, to suggest that their views on God are a matter of faith rather than knowledge. That might not be what's usually meant by "agnostic," but it is used that way by some people. marbeh raglaim 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy?

How about a controversy section? I'd be happy to go ahead and do the research, but I don't want to bother if it's just going to get deleted. Possible incidents would include Ebert's political comments in his reviews which have drawn fire from right-wing pundits, and his initial negative review of Brown Bunny and subsequent public feud with its creator. -- Jamiem

Totally agree; the Brown Bunny incident was notorious (and hilarious). 66.131.51.64 04:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I concur. As the most popular critic in America and on the Internet, the number of incidents involving Ebert are numerous.

According to the "Birth of a Nation" article, it says that Ebert gave the movie a good review...is this true? I think this qualifies as a controversial issue.

He listed it in his Great films section, but he put other Griffith movies first. He says of it "The film represents how racist a white American could be in 1915 without realizing he was racist at all." Although he indicates most of the racism is in the third act and concedes it has a visual beauty and narrative power. Whether it's a good review is kind of a matter of opinion, but I think largely he found it to be historically important despite its repulsive aspects. The full review is here.[2]--T. Anthony 03:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
He did give it a good review, but I'm not sure how that can be construed as controversial.--Amynewyork4248 16:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This is akin to labeling Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn controversial because of the language the characters use. --Dhartung | Talk 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a poor analogy. Twain's book, in the context of its time, is very much anti-racist, even if it contains some offensive language. Birth of a Nation is overtly racist, plain and simple. I agree, however, that it's a bit of a stretch to call Ebert's defense of the film's undeniable artistic merits "controversial." The AFI's praise for the film generated some controversy, but I am unaware that Ebert's heavily qualified review did. marbeh raglaim 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

i would also like to point out that many other people list it as one of the greatest films mostly because it was the first of its kind. if it had come, say, 5 years later we would only remember it as a racist movie. 08:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You know nothing about film. Stop. 74.212.17.148 05:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Married on 50th or 51st Birthday?

I could have sworn that I once read or heard that Ebert married on his 50th birthday, but according to this article it was his 51st. Did I just remember incorrectly, was I misinformed, or did Ebert and his wife get engaged or something a year earlier on his 50th?

[edit] Does Roger Ebert smoke?

Can anybody inquire into his past, and whether he once smoked, and then had to give it up because of doctor's recommendations?

I don't believe so. There hasn't been an indication that I've read to support this, though I may be wrong. --AWF

[edit] Criticism

Is Andrew Dice Clay's opinion of Ebert really relevant to the article? I could see the opinions of other reviewers being of interest, but a hack like Clay? Does it really matter? Seems more like gossip than encyclopedia material.Michael Dorosh 15:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, anonymous editors seem to be reinserting Clay's comments. Basically, all that says is that an actor got a bad review and called Ebert a bad name. What is the point of including it? Can someone post something vaguely reasonable in favour of keeping the material? I'm not seeing it.Michael Dorosh 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this would require a publication's or famous blog's written opinion to include this, but Ebert has been "known" to often (and not just occasionally) pan well-recieved movies and like poorly-rated ones. For example, I have heard that he "famously panned star wars when it first came out" (this coming from someone from a forum). The review I found on his site praised it, but I smell revisionism. And also, he gave The Da Vinci Code 3 stars, and I'm out of specific examples but I remember many comments from the Adult Swim Message Boards... Blueaster 05:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What idiot told you he panned Star Wars? The review of the original version has four stars, the movie is listed as a "Great Movie" and the Special Edition got four stars. 152.23.196.162 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Slightly more specific criticism I've heard is that he lets politics and attractiveness bias his reviews. On politics he seems to admit that he does let his politics sway his reviews at times and will talk politics in his review. His politics is in most respects Left/liberal as in favoring drug legalization, supporting racial minority interests, feminist-leaning, anti-corporation, anti-Republican Party, etc.(Although he got in a fight with Michael Moore about Oscar Night, he felt Moore was indeed booed, he's generally been very supportive of his films) Generally hostile to Communism or authoritarian Left though. On attractiveness I remember someone indicating he "goes easier" on a movie when he finds the lead actress really sexy. For example his review of Gigli was almost positive and he spoke favorably of the speech Jennifer Lopez gave in it concerning the vagina.--T. Anthony 06:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The other thing he did which really grated on me is he said in a review that Lahore was the capital of Pakistan. I know that might sound petty, but I was still a bit floored an educated Pulitzer Prize winner would mix that up.--T. Anthony 06:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Ebert very often gets small details like that wrong - to his credit, I suppose, he leaves them intact on his website. Often the details he muddles up are explained in the movies. I don't have any specific examples at the moment but have noticed this trend in the past, so his faux pas with Lahore is not alone - certainly can't be intentional either.Michael Dorosh 16:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Ebert's not a detail type of person. I've noticed that his plot summaries often contain inaccuracies about the movie under discussion. Of course, none of this belongs in the article if it's just our personal observations. marbeh raglaim 01:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you will need a bit more evidence than an Internet message board to support the claim that he panned Star Wars. I have his 1990 book, and it has what I assume to be his original review of Star Wars, which he called an "out-of-body experience." Furthermore, on his top-10 list from 1977 [3] he clearly includes Star Wars. To have fabricated all this would require a good deal more than revisionism: it would be a flat-out coverup, and there's no evidence Ebert has done anything of the kind anywhere else: for example, he didn't excise his negative review of A Clockwork Orange, and he has more than once admitted to being mistaken or changing his mind about films in the past. marbeh raglaim 15:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

He didn't pan Star Wars ANH. He did, however, state that Return of the Jedi was the "most interesting" of the trilogy and that "The Empire strikes back" was the least. I can't remember how he defined "interesting", but I know which of the two I'd rather see.
Nope, that's not right either. Taken straight from his review of TESB: "The Empire Strikes Back is the best of three Star Wars films, and the most thought-provoking." Taken straight from his 1997 review of ROTJ: "If I had to choose, I would say this is the least of the Star Wars films." 152.23.196.162 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You're quoting from his reviews of the re-released 1997 editions. The previous user, I believe, was talking about his reviews when the movies were first released back in the '80s. That said, I have his 1990 book, and his review of ROTJ (presumably based on his 1983 review) does not say anything about it being the weakest of the trilogy. marbeh raglaim 07:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As for his liberal bias, I think that's a valid criticism, but I should point out that he has always been forthright about it. I personally believe that he (along with most other critics) was very generous about Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, but it's worth mentioning that he also gave a positive review to Michael Moore Hates America, and he's shown a willingness to reevaluate Moore's films when presented with evidence of the distortions contained in them. marbeh raglaim 15:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he's given a fair number of pulpy films good reviews, like The Da Vinci Code and, as I just added to the article, Speed 2 (he's also admitted to liking breasts on-screen, though not gratuitously), though far more negative ones. He also tends to say very nice things about liberal-leaning films (though he gave the manipulative Life of David Gale zero stars), but do remember that most identifiably ideological films that get reviewed in any major metropolitan paper are liberal-leaning. --zenohockey 05:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Chicago

He doesn't not teach a class at the University of Chicago. The class is taught downtown and costs money to everyone, including University of Chicago students.

So he does teach a course at Uni of Chicago? Optimus Sledge 14:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
No, he doesn't, but he doesn't not teach it downtown and it costs money to everyone for him to not teach it, and that includes Univ. of Chicago students. ;-) 152.23.196.162 22:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I don't not completely not follow you now. NotOptimus Sledge 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iffy edit

Is it OK to say in the article that he hates Protestants? He bashed them once during a recording of Siskel and Ebert 156.34.208.149 16:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You'd need to come up with a date and a source, and ultimately you'd be constrained to "On DATE during X, Ebert stated that STATEMENT", preferably with a link to your source and any media coverage. Writing involves a lot of time-consuming hard work. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What is being referred to is a humorous (if decidedly off-color) little rant he gives (along with several other equally un-PC rants) in a well-known outtake segment from when he and Siskel were filming promos for their show. The entire thing is done with a mocking tone, and I think somebody would really need to be looking hard for something to get upset about to actually put any credence in any of it. (And the clip itself is hilarious, for what it's worth - a large part of it is simply he and Siskel trading insults with each other.)

[edit] Damn vandals...

I thought he was dead for a second there —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.238.117 (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

  • Somebody had another try a few days ago 84.188.227.208 22:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Moore?

I just saw this line in the controversy section: "has given positive reviews for even the most mediocre left leaning movie (anything by Roger Moore for example)". Mistake surely? If it said "mediocre left eyebrow raising movie" I would understand. Perhaps the author meant to write Michael Moore? Beanhead McGinty 10:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

    • haha clever!

[edit] Ebert's distaste for Imovie

When Ebert reviewed Sarah Silverman's "Jesus is Magic" on his At the Movies program, he said it looked like it had been edited with Imovie.

For over a year now, I've been wondering what was the basis for his cryptic observation.

Was he implying that Imovie is just plain hard to use, or produces inferior edits?

Or was his attempt to nail Jesus is Magic a Freudian manifestation of his desire to nail something else, and - groping for words - he bandied about the "Imovie" reference, this being the product of a deepseated desire nearly all day long nearly bursting from his lips, all of this at the drop of the proverbial hat, merely because, because - words almost fail me here - everybody else was doing so?

Sure would be nice if he could clear his Imovie reference up.

I never realized Ebert was such a nut case, although I have enjoyed his reviews and regret his bout with cancer. Hope he recovers fully. 198.177.27.20 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

do you mean iMovie? --Orange Mike 23:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he said iMovie because it's a common, non-high-end editing system avaliable on most Macs. Er go, he could have equally said "it looked like it was edited on someone's home computer instead of at a professional editing studio) --User:poorpete 10 May 2007

[edit] Thyroid Cancer

I added a bunch of details about his bout with thyroid cancer. It looked pretty good before, but I really wanted to stick to the exact facts as closely as possible. I was thinking about adding a quick fact about the prognosis of his type of thyroid cancer overall, but I thought it would be a bit too morbid. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chantoke (talk • contribs) 05:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Just provide a link to thyroid cancer, but it is not neccessary to talk specifically about his type of thyroid cancer in this article. This article is about Roger Ebert (and how he is dealing with cancer) and not about his cancer in general. That stuff belongs in the article about thyroid cancer. Azn Clayjar 18:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vincent gallo

i think that it should be added how ebert hated the brown bunny and vincent got really mad at him. i noticed that it is already discussed on the brown bunny page and vincets page. im only asking since it seems odd that its not on here already. 71.147.40.110 08:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The war of words with Gallo wasn't really an important aspect on Ebert's career. The reason it was mentioned on Vincent Gallo and the Brown Bunny is that the controversy helped Gallo's career and made the Brown Bunny known beyond the Cannes festival. But overall, it is just a footnote in Ebert's long career as a movie critic and not worth mentioning here. Azn Clayjar 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's worthy of mention. Gallo went on The Howard Stern Show to claim credit for Ebert getting cancer after Gallo put a "curse" on him to that effect, and Ebert devotes considerable space to the flap in his most recent book. Nightscream 02:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Gallo's claiming credit for causing Ebert's cancer is silly and thus irrevelant to the Ebert article. But if Ebert does mention about Gallo in his book, maybe there might be some mention then. Not too much. Azn Clayjar 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Who's Fuckig with the Trivia?

I would like to know why people are changing the trivia? Those facts that I added are true and interesting! What the hell.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.8.171 (talk • contribs) 15:51, August 28, 2007

  • They might well be true and interesting, but you would be well advised to read Wikipedia's policy on trivia in article, which is entitled: "Avoid trivia sections." If it's notable enough, the trivia item will be incorporated into the article, otherwise it'll get pulled out as non-encyclopedic. Tabercil 22:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want to know who's doing this, then you might want to read your Talk Page, since we have already attempted to speak to you about that matter there. As it is, misspelled unsigned, anonymous profane exclamations aren't exactly the best way to show that you're willing to collaborate with others here. Let's try to keep it civil, okay? Nightscream 04:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some shaky facts

There's nothing in Ebert's review of I Spit on Your Grave that says he considers it the worst movie ever made. And even if he did write that, the review is 27 years old and he might've seen a worse one by now.

Secondly, the thing about him wanting Phillip Seymour Hoffman to play the movie version of him is taken out of context. He actually said, "Brad Pi...excuse me, Philip Seymour Hoffman." But the thing about Hoffman is probably a reference to the fact that Hoffman is indeed playing him in the upcoming Russ Meyer bioepic.

The whole section on his personal tastes is, IMO, unnecessary since it's his job to give his personal opinions on films. I've removed it, but perhaps someone can figure out a way to incorporate the facts into the main article. --YellowTapedR 05:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call, Yellow. However, I think the parts about his favorite film, actor or actress are acceptable to include in that section. Since he's possibly the most famous movie critic in the country, it stands to reason that readers may be interested in who his favorite performers and movies are, which is apart from merely his job to give personal opinions on films. Perhaps those three things can be incorporated into the "Style of Critique" section? Nightscream 17:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I put the stuff about his favorites in the style of critique, but couldn't figure out how to incorporate the stuff about his least favorites (the critique section already does mention North, so no need to repeat it). He and Gene Siskel were known to campaign against certain films back in the 80s, so maybe the stuff about I Spit on Your Grave can be incorporated into something like that. --YellowTapedR 18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

He said I Spit on Your Grave was the worst movie he's seen in his TV review of the movie "Enough." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.11.170 (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Video Games?

Ebert's not-infrequent criticism of video games as an "art form" is pretty well-publicized and I was wondering if anyone felt it should be mentioned here? I would make the edit myself but I hardly feel qualified and have spent plenty of time badmouthing his stance on the matter that I would probably be incapable of keeping it NPOV.Lelapinmechant 04:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

He's mentioned it, IIRC, in one review (his review of Doom), and again in an edition of his Answer Man feature. I don't think it merits inclusion. Nightscream 05:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it does. His opinion is notorious around the Internet, especially in the gaming press, and at least one fairly well-known figure (Clive Barker) has directly responded to it. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If he's said something a whole two times in his entire writing career, it sounds like undue emphasis to make a big deal about it. The videogamer community (not synonymous with "the gaming press") may be conducting a "war" that nobody else knows or cares about. --Orange Mike 16:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Whether something is "notorious around the Internet" (something that should be sourced), "especially in the gaming press" doesn't sound like a criterion for noteworthiness. Ebert has been criticized for lots of things, perceived or otherwise. After he criticized Tyler Perry's Diary of a Mad Black Woman, people excoriated him via email by opining that Ebert was ignorant of films by black filmmakers. These people were apparently ignorant of all the films of Spike Lee, John Singleton, and other filmmakers of every ethnicity and nationality imaginable that Ebert had reviewed, both positively and otherwise. It's just not that big a deal to merit inclusion. Similarly, the video game thing is minor, and Clive Barker's response was as incoherent as those of Perry's apologists. Nightscream 16:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Videogames are a entertainment media format, and Ebert's past comments had enraged many gamers and even more so the people who work on such projects. The fact remains that Ebert's view touched a sore spot in gamers. Also, it should be noted that some movie directors who worked on videogame to movie projects, as well as other had also found his comments insulting. The comments had also been featured in various magazine articles, especially on gaming magazines such as EGM. Although it may or many not merit a needed entry, it has effected some in the movie industry and may actually be valid to his bio. VGuyver 03:57, 13 October 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.110.25 (talk)

If the comments are confined mostly to the gaming industry, and not in the mainstream press, then it hardly warrants inclusion. If there are prominent movie directors who have responded to his comments, and they can be sourced, then perhaps it might warrant a mention, IMHO. Nightscream 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ebert1.JPG

Image:Ebert1.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  1. All one-two sentences must be either expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
  2. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must summarize every major point/heading covered in the main body of the article. Currently, for example, there is little, if anything, on his personal life and battle with thyroid cancer, despite it being a major section of the article. It must also not contain any information that is not present in the body of the article. Most of the paragraph that begins with"Ebert's movie reviews are syndicated to more than 200 newspapers in the United States and abroad," violates this.
  3. The article needs far more citations. Some of the major examples include, but are not necessarily limited to:
    "In his senior year he was co-editor of his high school newspaper, The Echo." (Early life)
    "Ebert did his graduate study in English at the University of Cape Town under a Rotary International Fellowship. He was a doctoral candidate in English at the University of Chicago when the film critic's position was offered to him by the Sun-Times." (Early life)
    Some of the stuff under "Career" is inherent, but a lot more requires citations.
    Most of "Other career highlights"
    The quote in the opening sentence of "Style of critique and personal tastes"
    "Ebert has reprinted his starred reviews in movie guides. During his appearances on Howard Stern's radio show, he was frequently challenged to defend his ratings. Ebert stood by his opinions with one notable exception: when Stern pointed out that he'd given The Godfather Part II a three-star rating, but had given The Godfather Part III three and a half stars." (Style of critique and personal tastes)
    "Ebert also shows a marked distaste for films that feature violence in support of authority. For movies that feature religion, he has been known to comment on them using his own Roman Catholic faith and his own interpretation of Christianity. He often includes personal anecdotes in his reviews when he considers them relevant. He has occasionally written reviews in the forms of stories, poems, songs, scripts, or imagined conversations. He has written many essays and articles exploring the field of film criticism in depth." (Style of critique and personal tastes)
    "In his review of The Exorcist, Ebert said it was "stupefying" that the film received a rating of "R" from the MPAA instead of an "X" (suitable only for adults)." (Views on the film industry)
    The first paragraph of "Personal life"
    "He is also good friends with film historian and critic Leonard Maltin, and considers the book Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide to be the standard of film guide books." (Personal life)
    The first and fourth paragraphs of "Battle with thyroid cancer"
  4. The "Other career highlights" and "Other appearances" sections are far too underdeveloped to merit their own Level 3 heading at this point. They should be either expanded or merged into career.

Most critically, the prose is very choppy and, what's more, requires a significant copyedit. Certain sections, such as "Early life" and "Battle with thyroid cancer" are borderline proseline, but the article as whole jumps from idea to idea, paragraph to paragraph, with very little proper flow. This, also taking into account the fact that many sections and facts are missing citations, means that I am going to fail the article rather than put it on hold. I feel that this article would benefit from a careful reworking of the prose to make it flow better, rather than a quick fix that a hold is intended for. Cheers, CP 06:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's with Ebert and the Wikipedia fetish?

I 've got to ask this as a longtime user here. What's with quoting this guy or linking to his page in every film entry in wikipedia? And almost 100% of the time this is done without saying "critic ebert said blah blah", just ebert said so and so about the film, as if people around the globe should know who the bleep some u.s. critic is... Does this guy have some sort of cult following scoring high on the uglyness/nerd scale or what? How did he all of a sudden come to dominate wikipedia? 91.132.224.196 (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely with you about this. Even if Roger Ebert is regarded as America's best KNOWN film critic that doesn't mean that he is the BEST film critic. I've seen far more insightful reviews on Amazon than by most paid critics. Just talking about him gives him more note than he deserves. His views on videogames are completely wrong (he clearly hasn't played many or any in any depth). He is just one of 6 billion critics in the world of varying skills. I am a critic, you are a critic, everyone's a critic.

Ebert is undoubtedly and inarguably America's best-known living film critic. Many Americans, if asked to name a film critic, would be able to name Ebert and no other. If Ebert gives a film a positive review, it is virtually certain that the review will be quoted in the promotions for that film. It is therefore natural for American Wikipedia editors, of which there are many, to include his opinion when describing a film's critical reception. The point of Wikipedia is not to draw attention to especially insightful Amazon reviewers. Propaniac (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What's with quoting this guy or linking to his page in every film entry in wikipedia? Can you provide examples? Nightscream (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Even so, he is very often the ONLY critic mentioned by name. I guess this is some kind of Americanism which I don't understand (being a Brit) Tomgreeny (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maxivision?

I recall his preferring it to digital a number of years ago. Has he been won over by digital? I thought perhaps he had been. 72.231.188.91 (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)