(A) Both the flavorwire source, the variety source (which adds context) and the 850-900 million make it clear that the film is "a disappointment" because it falls INTO that range.
- (B) You are changing your rational from (A). The other citations directly call this "a box office disappointment." So, if you like, we can just drop the 850-900 language and just stick with the neutral language "a box office disappointment for failing to live up to high standards" etc.
- Clearly this belongs in the body. I thought it was mentioned more or less by the box office statements where it was clear that analysts criticized the box office for failing to "have legs" and failing to crack a billion. I and others can make it MORE specific. Since then, more sources are emerging -- mostly because the Marvel: Civil War debate is helping to distill this -- that B v S is a disappointment though it more or less broke even, maybe even turn a small though not notable profit. Add to that, this was a critical failure and the divided fanbase and whether we like it or not, the press has pretty much already called this what it was: a disappointment. Not a failure. Not a flop. But not a hit, hence "disappointment." Not sure what more needs to be discussed. The interpretation so far in this 'update' seems to be: how can we get away with a WIKI:OR violation if we play a WP:UNDUE violation card by using original research to make the numbers and analysis say something here that is NOT really being said in the press, nor in the industry. Forgive the snark, however what began this debate was a confession that "only WB can make this kinda call" which is confessing to a WP:UNDUE violation which, ironically, was the justification for attacking another source as WP:UNDUE. As it stands, I can now safely say there are about 10:1 sources saying this is "a box office and critical disappointment." This isn't football whereby if this movie cracks $900 million, suddenly we call this a hit...just be cuz. So we don't confuse the reader, we can change the semantics to reflect that is underperformed for a tentpole film for failing to make 1 billion dollars or whatever language is necessary to accurately reflect what the press or the industry was thinking. Our will or opinion means squat here. CheersGhriscore (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- P.S.As for the rest, WE are not box office analysts. Trying to weigh-in as arm chair analysts here is offensive: ie. dissecting what it means for a film to be a hit or not based on whether it falls into this range or that range OR fails to make a billion dollars. That is NOT our job here. Mentioning "seen as" or "viewed as" I agree is a duh statement because ANY analysis or the critical or box office success of most films is someone's opinion in some sense or another. We report. We don't offer our analysis, period. When I am offering reasons here, I am offering the reasoning of the press, not my own. That's the difference. And, sure, I can find a source right now that says "B v S was profitable" or something weasel-like in that vein. However...careful investigation will empirically find that this is a minority view. The major sources have already weighed in on this. It was a disappointment. Not a flop, not a bomb. But it failed to live up to expectations. Just because that creates shades of gray that create confusion here doesn't mean we should exploit it to our own end: where we can WIKI:LAWYER our OWN pov into this or worse, hope that 'said confusion' will hide our personal interpretations. In the spirit of good faith, all I can offer is some of you are terribly confused. I will offer some more neutral language, see if it helps to address the egos and politically-incorrect nature of some of this. But this isn't rocket science folks. WB had high hopes for this film. You going to honestly tell me that the press and the industry is singing this film's praises??? Whether this film actually IS a hit or WAS a good movie is a different debate entirely. That's the line we cross. Food for thought.Ghriscore (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- P.P.S. I went ahead with a change. I offered a rewrite, and more neutral wording. Lead is now drastically changed, neutralized. Body now includes something per request. Let me apologize in address to the original contributor(s) on this. Not sure if the original contributor/editor will balk at this, since it wasn't MY contribution to begin with. If he/she has an issue with it, then...oh well. For the record, I did NOT disagree with your contribution and I could readily accept the 850-900 rationale, though it needed some refinement for sure. But I went ahead with the change anyways since everyone here is entitled to their opinion and right to contribute. Personally, I think this reads better and addresses all concerns. But if the original contributor is like, "Hell no", then blame me. Good night peeps.Ghriscore (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- ......The change is fine. That said, for the umpteenth time: there is no real debate over whether or not this film was a disappointment. The only debate is whether or not it is fair that the industry and our culture has such high expectations for these global super blockbusters. Fanboys and haters will always debate these things, I suppose, on messageboards. So there's that. But there is near unanimous agreement in the press circle and among industry analysts that this flick was a disappointment never-the-less. People are making too much of the fact that the movie broke even and made a small profit. It's not notable enough to justify censoring notable history of an event.
- ......Just to make sure I wasn't losing my mind I ran this by another veteran editor/moderator. He even helped me with the wording in the lead. I invited him here to explain this to everyone. He said he will if an edit war breaks out. Also, he brought to my attention that this is a growing problem with film articles; how valuable news is censored or spun to satisfy corporate propaganda or anti-intellectual concerns. To paraphrase him, the lead is where we summarize notable developments. The notable developments in the history of this story:(1) This is WB's first extended universe film, (2) The first official Batman meets Superman film. (3) Wonder woman, duh (4) The critical panning, and (5) it's disappointing box office returns for failing to meet reasonably high expectations for this big investment by Warner Brothers. Many movies make a profit but are considered a disappointment, like Edward Norton's Incredible Hulk. For instance, The Hulk and Spidey are Marvel's big tentpole characters. Star Wars is a big tentpole film. Batman and Superman are big tentpole properties. When they fail to do stellar business, they are considered a disappointment for that very reason. The analysis on this is simple and clear and well-documented. However you want to include this, or word this, I don't care. As it stands now, I hate it because it is watered down in my opinion, but it is still getting the information across so I can live with it. It would be irresponsible to leave it out all together because of a philosophical disagreement on this. That's all I got.Thefearedhallmonitor (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to look over the comments recently added here, as it's a "wall of text". Both of you should try to be more concise in your responses. That said, I have reverted the lead to its prior form when this discussion started. We should wait for an agreement here before messing with it in the article. Let's give Bignole and others a chance to weigh in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- If we are going to leave it alone, there should be nothing wrong using the more neutral wording for now unless you're partial to the more strongly worded edit. That was meant as a compromise for you two. If you dont like it,then offer a tweak of your own. This is not a debate about whether something notable should be censored or not. There are limits to consensus, don't worry...I asked. Please offer YOUR own version of this then. No sarcasm. How would you like to word this, and we will go with your version then? I'm all earsGhriscore (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is not how dispute resolution works. The statement in the article was previously formed through a consensus in an earlier discussion, where it has remained in place for some time. You should carefully look over WP:STATUSQUO to see how these type of situations typically play out. When there is an active discussion, propose your changes here as opposed to the article and leave the status quo intact. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is I am not sure what the dispute is, or that there really is one. Not to mention that the faux resolution process here, with film articles like this, flirt with a Wiki lawyering violation (i.e. gaming the system) to advance a WP:OR violation. The consensus here before more or less was to keep this contribution. But wiki articles are living documents, so now it is time to nuance and update it. If it magically makes more than a billion dollars, then someone will probably report this in the press and we change or delete the contribution. But we don't change it because the film suddenly makes a dollar over 900 million and we then decide through personal analysis and WP:OR that this means the press was wrong and we were right. Also, I'm sure the 900 million and billion cap was an attempt to round this off. The context is clear: it needed to make a big profit. Not a modest one. If it changes in the press, then we should change it. So if this is a dispute, it is one over semantics. Not a dispute over whether or not it is a valid perception by the press and industry at large. So it should be a dispute over wording, not whether we keep this or not as that was more or less decided. Otherwise you succeed, at worst, of getting away with a violation of the spirit of a wiki. That's not a victory I'd be proud of. Later.Ghriscore (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- The dispute in question is whether or not to keep the statement, and if kept, how to rephrase it. At least one editor disagrees with you at this point and stated that it's a possible violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to comprehend, but I don't know how to state it more simply than this: When there is a dispute (whether or not you understand the dispute), avoid edit-warring, discuss on the talk page, or use a different form of dispute resolution. This advice is at the very core of Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. I notice that you've been blocked before in the past for an edit after repeated warnings. If you don't fully understand how dispute resolution works, then feel free to carry this over to a sidebar conversation on my talk page, or seek help/advice at one of the many Help forums. If you continue to be disruptive here, your actions may be reported.I'll ping Bignole to see what his/her thoughts are on the recent changes. I've already stated I'm impartial to whether or not it remains in the article, but at the same time, I understand where both sides are coming from. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, my account was once hijacked because I left my account open at a terminal in a cafe. It happened twice in fact, the second time by an office sociopath who was angry at me for letting him go. Your point? So much for 'good faith'(read: your chronic complaint). Look, I'm not arguing against consensus because I'm afraid I will lose or because "I don't get it." But rather than do the lame thing and go straight to mediation for a petty sentence in an wikipedia article (that is not even mine in the first place), maybe I was being real here for a moment and trying to have a human being to human being conversation here. If reporting me makes you feel better about yourself, then go for it. I don't really have a reputation or ego to bruise here. As far as this debate goes, wikipedia is set up to prevent this murky kind of problem if editors would simply take the time to use the tools available. But most people do NOT have the time, so they let the lowest common denominator decide and we get watered down, censored wikipedia articles. Ergo...just because you can 'game the system' to advance a POV doesn't mean you should. But, giving YOU good faith here, I don't think that is what you are doing. I think you are just conflicted. If that's true, then let me remind you that Bignole confessed to motive when he slipped and argued for a WP:UNDUE violation, saying that "Only Warner Bros can decide if this is a disappointment." Here it is, in case he denies it..https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman_v_Superman:_Dawn_of_Justice&diff=prev&oldid=716759109 He simply changed his rationale after I called him out on it. Also, Bignole isn't a moderator. So running it past him means what exactly?
- But as far as the merits of 'this debate' go, the loose unofficial consensus so far was at least three editors (that I could count,maybe more) versus your impartial vote and Bignole's down vote. Out of respect for their wishes, I would like to still keep this civil, if possible. But if you want to start reporting this, then you have to decide if in the bigger scheme of things if it is really worth it and your time. I don't think this is a full-blown edit war. Most likely, this place will become even more forgotten when Marvel:Civil War comes out...which is a little ironic considering our debate about the disappointing nature of this film, dotcha think? But I was being snarky there. On a serious note, when it comes to this culture war here and elsewhere that everyone seems to be caught up in these days, I implore you to look inward and honestly ask yourself this important question: when it comes to journalistic integrity, what kind of world do YOU want to live in? You can have the final word on this debate, gentlemen. Peace out.Ghriscore (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Bignole represents the other side of the discussion. You made changes to the article, I attempted to restore the status quo, you reverted, and instead of worrying about the status quo, I pinged Bignole to see if he/she is fine with those changes. If so, we have consensus and can finally move on. Also, I'm not sure why you and Thefearedhallmonitor continue to bring up the terms "moderator" and "admin" in your comments. Making these kinds of references and comparisons are irrelevant to this discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- First, to address the dumb idea of "motive". I still stand by the argue that it's undue weight to attribute that statement in the lead. The original statement was focused on a specific wording that was only supported by one person and taken out of context. Before I realized that it was taken out of context from the actual article, it just seemed like we were putting a lot of value into one person saying that it was a disappointment for not making more than 900 million, which in fact that was not what he said. So, nothing about my original argument has changed. I was attacking the wording in the lead.
- That said, Gonein60 and I have discussed it at length, realizing what the sources were actually saying. At the moment, I'm fine with the wording because it represents pretty much what has been said by some: that it was a disappointment for not earning more. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
|