Jump to content

Talk:Morbius (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.29.199.34 (talk) at 14:53, 31 July 2023 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2023: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Paul Tassi

Paul Tassi is a contributor at Forbes, where he writes about movies among other things [1]. He is currently quoted in this article in the critical response section. A user has attempted to remove the source per WP:FORBESCON which states more or less that Forbes "contributors" are to be treated as self-published sources unless they are subject-matter experts. I've undone this twice now, because 1) There is no indication Tassi is not a subject-matter expert on films and other media (he's cited in other articles across Wikipedia) and 2) Even if he were not a subject-matter expert, he's giving an opinion, which is allowed per WP:RSOPINION. -- Vaulter 21:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaulter: It doesn't matter whether the source is being cited as a factual report or an opinion piece. Per WP:FORBESCON, all articles written by Forbes contributors are unreliable and should be treated as self-published sources unless they are subject-matter experts. Self-published sources are never to be used except in rare circumstances, or else we would be able to add in random blogs and tweets into the Critical reception section. Tassi is NOT a subject-matter expert, I could not find any reliable sources other than his Forbes article that cite him. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lesen WP:RSOPINION. I beg you. And btw, neither FORBESCON nor SPS says we cannot use self published sources for opinion. -- Vaulter 22:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, and nowhere does it say unreliable sources can be used if it's being cited for the author's opinion. The way I interpret it, it's saying that we can't treat opinion pieces as fact, not that we can use any source we want as long as it's an opinion. Like I said, this is equivalent to citing a random blog or social media post in the Reception section. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact" seems pretty clear to me, but you do you. -- Vaulter 02:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if WP:RSOPINION was more specific in what some sources refers to, but it doesn't, so this is up for interpretation. The only type of source mentioned is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers, but WP:NEWSBLOG states: For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see § Self-published sources below. WP:FORBESCON says Forbes contributor pieces should be treated as self-published sources, which means they are not governed by WP:NEWSBLOG. By extension, WP:RSOPINION does not apply here. Notice that WP:RSPS mentions WP:RSOPINION multiple times, but not for Forbes contributors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaulter: would you mind responding? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was hoping others would comment on this thread. I really don't have much to add to what I've already said. -- Vaulter 15:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a post at WT:FILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Vaulter 18:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaulter: There is no indication Tassi is not a subject-matter expert on films and other media, the onus is on you to prove he is a subject-matter expert, not on the other party to prove that he isn't. —El Millo (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with WP:EDITCON? Long-standing text should not be removed without proper discussion first. -- Vaulter 02:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text has been restored, you still need to prove he's a subject-matter expert. —El Millo (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the Tassi comment really adds that much to the article TBH so it wouldn't detrimental if it were left out, but on the other hand some Forbes contributors can be pretty well informed in their topic areas so I have always been relaxed about their inclusion. I think the acid test for determining whether someone is an "expert" is whether they have published similar content in other reliable sources. If they have then I think it is ok to include it, if they haven't then it probably should be deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tassi's Twitter page indicates he only writes for Forbes and no one else, and I couldn't find many reliable sources (max. 3) citing his work. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave aside Tassi for a second—are there really no indisputably more reliable sources that can be used? There's no shortage of notable critics at major publications with at least some editorial oversight. This was a major Hollywood release with plenty of critical commentary—Why not use those better sources? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the suggestion, but I feel this discussion should establish a consensus on whether WP:FORBESCON can be ignored for reviews in case something similar happens in the future. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edits like this one is why I think we need to establish some sort of consensus on this matter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what WP:RSPS is trying to do in general and it is reasonable to be cautious when referencing "contributors" on factual matters but excluding reviews from film critics seems absurd (and I would say the same about publications far less reliable than Forbes). On general principle I would say that the review should be included. After that if editors still wanted to replace his opinion on with other reviews from other critics I'd be fine with that too but I would not make it a priority (for example this article repeatedly uses not great sources like Screenrant as references and there are other sources I'd see about replacing before Forbes). -- 109.77.202.118 (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So for the record, the disputed text in question is Paul Tassi of Forbes said that Adrian Toomes' motivation made little sense and opined that "[a]ll of this seems... pretty poorly mapped out at the moment... It's more like [Sony] stole Toomes from the MCU rather than added Morbius to the MCU, which was more the original implication." With that in mind, I think focusing on reliability is approaching this from the wrong angle. Paul Tassi is self-evidently a WP:Reliable source for the opinions of Paul Tassi. In terms of reliability, it doesn't really matter where Tassi published their opinion—Twitter would be just as good as a top-tier source. The question to ask is whether this content is WP:DUE. Is Tassi's opinion representative of the majority opinion in the field? In that case, it may be appropriate to include it—but better sources expressing the same opinion would likely exist (there may however be other reasons to prefer using Tassi, such as brevity or clarity of phrasing). Is Tassi so central a figure in this field that their opinion is due even if it is not shared by the majority? In that case it would be appropriate to include it (but then Tassi would presumably also be a subject-matter expert). If the answer to both those questions is "no", there is one final question to ask: Does this content improve the article to such an extent that it would be warranted to make an exception per WP:IAR? TompaDompa (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tassi's opinion is echoed by many, so there is definitely a plethora of alternate sources to use. Even with the Tassi source removed, the same paragraph still has three critics basically saying the same thing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no issue using any sources written by Tassi for Forbes. Per WP:FORBESCON, contributor articles on Forbes are considered self-published and unreliable unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. Tassi qualifies because he is a Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic verified critic who has been writing for Forbes for more than 10 years. Even if we did consider his articles to be self-published, they would still be reliable sources because of who he is. Note that this is the same for Tassi's social media, it is self-published but can be used as a reliable source because he is verified (for example, see @PaulTassi on Twitter which has the verified tick next to his name). I haven't looked into the specific text at issue yet so can't comment on whether this specific source is actually needed, but discussion should be focused on the content and whether it needs to be in the article rather than whether the source is reliable. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe he can be considered a subject-matter expert just because his Twitter is verified and he is a verified RT/Metacritic review. WP:SPS states: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. (bolding my own). This is not the case for Tassi as far as I know; a Google News search for his name while excluding Forbes.com failed to yield a large number of reliable sources citing his film reviews/analyses. An argument can be made that he is an SPS in video games, though. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no movement on this, so I'm unwatching this page. (The initial objector also appears to have been blocked, so they won't be replying further anyway.) Please ping me if there are new developments. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2022

The film has grossed $163,865,530 and not $164 million.[1] 2804:7F2:5A5:2BCE:39AA:D59C:68B8:D3B (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That number ($163.8 million) is rounded up to $164 million, which isn't wrong per se. —El Millo (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
best be specific You choose your username 1124 (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Morbius". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved June 17, 2022. ID is missing in both template and Wikidata; please add to either place.

"Morbius (Film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Morbius (Film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Morbius (Film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2023

The quoted Rotten Tomatoes consensus currently uses a [sic] for the phrase "a vein attempt to make Morbius happen." Because the Morbius character is a vampire that bites into veins to consume blood, this is likely an intentional pun by the website's editors, so a [sic] is inappropriate. 24.29.199.34 (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morbius_(film)&oldid=1168061025"