Talk:Run Hide Fight

Reverted edits convey truth which belongs in article, article locked to keep it from being added - NPOV violation

This article is currently - 20210118 - locked after a short edit war between someone who added the fact that this movie was lauded by the audience at the Venice film festival where it was premiered while critics for the most panned it. On Rotten Tomatoes the critical score lies at 22% while the audience rates it at 98%. Usually when movies receive positive reviews from viewers but negative ones from critics this indicates there is a political motive for the discrepancy, as seems to be the case here as well.

By consistently reverting the edit which adds information which is certain to be of interest to readers looking for information on this movie, the article and the editor who did the reverting and the locking clearly violates the NPOV. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a political action platform, if you want to publish op-eds you should apply to the likes of Variety, the New York Times or Vogue. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. By turning Wikipedia into a political pamphlet, one article at a time, you dramatically reduce the perceived reliability of the platform for everybody, not just those on the "conservative" side but also those on the "progressive" whose standpoints you think you defend. An echo chamber is not a place where truth is told, that is the definition of the term. Stop turning Wikipedia into an echo chamber, don't be so afraid of opinions which go against your narrative and, most of all, do not destroy this valuable asset.

Yetanwiki (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The only one who is making this political is you. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Audience response. That is the policy. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You might want to read that section you quoted as it proves my point wrt. the Rotten Tomatoes score. Yetanwiki (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. Come again? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that part as well now, strange that it is here since Rotten Tomatoes is generally seen as the place to go for this type of information as well as to gauge the difference between critical and audience response. Disallowing this type of information here makes it more or less impossible to keep a NPOV wrt. movie reviews on Wikipedia since professional movie critics tend to be a rather homogeneous group. Alas. Yetanwiki (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You could always bring it up again at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. If the film is ever put on CinemaScore, that is when we can add audience scores as it is accredited polling. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If the movie was well received at the Venice Film Festival would that be notable? Trying to find a compromise here. The discrepancy between Critic and Audience is notable in my opinion, but clearly against current policy. David587320 (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find a WP:RS. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 06:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I looked for about 30 minutes and couldn't find anything about how the movie was received in Venice as it was listed as "out of competition." If anyone has anything, it looks like we have a decent compromise, otherwise, I'd say wait and see if any reliable/approved audience polling comes out. Until then, disagree with the rules all you want, and try to change them if you will, but follow them regardless. David587320 (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The so-called discrepancy is not worthy of note unless reliable sources note it, like with Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Audience reception. User ratings are essentially vulnerable to battleground mentalities whenever a film has a whiff of politics attached. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Erik: Speaking of which, and this is getting a little off-topic for this talk page, why does the Last Jedi list Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores under the "Audience Reception" page? Isn't that a violation of current policy? I'm new to the whole editing thing so I hope I did the reply right. David587320 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

They are included because they've been discussed directly by reliable sources, particularly their susceptibility. It's simply referencing primary sources in the context of understanding what secondary sources are discussing when it comes to these scores. Like if a film had a particular scene that multiple sources discussed, we would describe it before reporting what sources said about it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

So the distinction is purely based on whether another source mentions the Rotten Tomatoes audience score? If that's the case it seems like it is only a matter of time until someone writes an article about the Tomatometer being broken again, which will restart this whole debate. Am I just grossly misunderstanding your point? David587320 (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A mere mention would not suffice per WP:FRUIT. In the case of The Last Jedi, the score was directly scrutinized and the reason(s) for its discrepancy highlighted. Wikipedia can report how such scores are discussed. Another example is Ghostbusters discussed here. From what I've seen, the examples can be numerous enough that not every individual film gets discussed. So it depends on how much more coverage this film will get. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I understand now. Thank you. David587320 (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you already know this but WP:FRUIT is an essay not an official WP policy and as such, per Wikipedia norms, it's generally considered best not to refer to it as or imply that as is an official policy. The disclaimer states at the top of the WP:Fruit essay's page states: "This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.". It would be better to refer to whatever the community has decided is how WP editors should handle audience scores currently. I have not kept up on this but if we have decide that merely citing a RT audience score alone is not acceptable per notability policy then lets cite that as the reason to keep it out of the article and state the justification the community cited. Essays can be useful for how to interpret and implement policies for individual editors in some cases but we should remember that they do not always represent a consensus interpretation of WP policy. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:FILM is a guideline, and it has already been quoted above, "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." Since it is a guideline and not policy, there can be instances where it is appropriate to mention it, as I explained with Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Other examples can be seen at vote brigading. As you can see, when something is political, user ratings are used as a battleground, which completely defeat the purpose of accurately reporting an audience score. That's why CinemaScore and PostTrak are preferred to more accurately measure that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The discrepancy between critic and audience score is notable, one that has been discussed on the national stage (see Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire, one of the largest conservative news sources), while other critics such as https://filmschoolrejects.com/run-hide-fight-review/ also give it a good review, but are not included.

While one can debate the reliability of a user score and its merits for inclusion, the debate surrounding the difference is something readers should be aware of. I aim to remain fair, neutral, and keep my own political beliefs at home. I hope you all do too. ASuperEditor (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes uses verified critics, so if a critic is not there, then they must not have been verified (the link you provided is actually listed. There's also no doubt in my mind that some of the critics giving their review here are also politically motivated, like the audience score—I mean just look at the reviews by DeHaan and Griffin—but that's what we have to go with unfortunately). I enjoy watching Shapiro, and have seen him criticize Rotten Tomatoes vehemently in his recent videos, but given his company distributed the film, he is literally the definition of a biased source here. Even the fact that he has criticized Rotten Tomatoes so much gives even stronger reason to believe that the audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes are skewed. The Daily Wire is also not considered to be a WP:RS on Wikipedia Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Daily Wire. Given The Daily Wire''s involvement, I doubt there will be any RS' commenting on the audience scores, but we'll have to wait and see. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to point out another interesting example where the RT audience score was particularly notable: Gotti (2018 film)#Rotten Tomatoes controversy. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Please can someone explain something to me?

How can a site be accepted as a reliable source for critics review yet not accepted for audience review?

Secondly, between the critics and the audience, who should have more weight. I would argue the audience. The critics are as susceptible to politics as the audience are. I would argue even more.

I have seen a lot of movies with positive critics review that I regretted going to see at the cinema and for a while I err on the side of the audience. The number of movies I have seen that were good when the audience gave a positive review while critics gave a negative review are much more than that of the opposite.

Finally, what happens when the movies are not listed on metametrics?

I would argue that if there is no way to get the user score from metametrics, then the critics score should be left out of the movie article.

That for me would provide balance. I have seen quite a number of movies with good critical review that I and almost every one I know ended up hating. If that is not a sign that the critics can be swayed I don't know what else can be.

Finally, what process do you take to change or at least debate the rules? Moreh GAI (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

How can a site be accepted as a reliable source for critics review yet not accepted for audience review? To paraphrase what I read elsewhere: how can the The New York Times be considered a reliable when the letters to the editor are not? Wikipedia does not allow WP:USERGENERATED content as a source, user voted web polls (audience scores) are not a reliable source WP:RS. -- 109.78.196.88 (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that instead of the rules stating that audience review cannot be added to the movie article. Let it be allowed with a notation that it might not be accurate due to it being suceptible to vote stacking and demographic view, same way a warning label is added to cigarette packs.

I have come to see that most of the critics are one sided in their political thinking and if politics can sway audience review which are capable of being corrected by an equal number of audience with an opposite political view, should I think it won't sway the critics who basically belong to one political group? Moreh GAI (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

Add "The film has an audience score of 92% on Rotten Tomatoes" after the sentence "Run Hide Fight received mostly negative reviews from critics and has a score of 22% on Rotten Tomatoes based on nine reviews with an average rating of 4.20/10." 47.145.224.130 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Participate in discussion above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Second Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

Update the sentence "Run Hide Fight received mostly negative reviews from critics and has a score of 22% on Rotten Tomatoes based on nine reviews with an average rating of 4.20/10." to "Run Hide Fight received mostly negative reviews from critics and has a score of 30% on Rotten Tomatoes based on nine reviews with an average rating of 4.20/10." This change reflects more recent updates to Rotten Tomatoes. David587320 (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Link Broken

The link to Rotten Tomatoes reviews is not working. Did Rotten Tomatoes take the movie down or move it? I couldn't find anything. The IMDb link is still working. David587320 (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That's weird, but that's what we have archive links for I guess. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't work for me either. I've only really seen this happen when the URL changes a bit (like to append a release year), but I am not seeing it moved elsewhere. We'll have to wait and see if it's a glitch or if there's something more. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: It seems to work now. I don't seem to see anything in the news about the RT page being down for a time. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The article reports the critics dislike for the film, but it does not report the audience support for the film on the same site.

Film critics, like game critics and the mainstream media generally, tend to be on the left politically and culturally - they would not be expected to like a conservative film. If the hostile rating of the critics on "Rotten Tomatoes" is reported then the support of the audience for the film, on the same site, should also be supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:96F6:5300:C405:8E2C:AB55:1D33 (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you miss the whole discussion about this in the first post here? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

User ratings are subject to vote stacking and demographic skew, per MOS:FILM. They are not used even for non-political films. There is even less reason to use such ratings for political films since they are subject to vote brigading (from any particular stance). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes the first section does cover this to a certain extent, but it is rather convoluted and the article itself has not been corrected. If you are going to give the critics scores of a product you need to give the counter balancing audience scores. After all mainstream media critics are not going to like anything at all produced by a conservative company such as the "Daily Wire".2A02:C7F:96F6:5300:C405:8E2C:AB55:1D33 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't "need" to do anything. Audience scores from websites are not accurate in any sense, much less to counter-balance anything. When available, we use CinemaScore and PostTrak, but even these are self-selecting opening-weekend audiences. Critics aren't as self-selecting. Furthermore, taking a look, it does not appear that National Review has written about this film at all, and that is a critic that could have been referenced here. Why they haven't done that, I don't know. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand, which do you think is more probable Erik, the film being bad despite it receiving an over whelming audience review (even with vote stacking) and a bad critics review or the film being good despite it recieving bad critic reviews but good audience reviews?

Also, are you telling me the only measure of accuracy in movies is critics review?

Anyhow, I would argue a balance need to be made. Let us stop pretending as if critics cannot be swayed by politics in their reviews.

Once again I have seen a lot of movies with great critics review that everyone I know hated watching. Moreh GAI (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that even if the exact audience review might not be mentioned in the article, the decripancy should be mentioned.

It could go something like this "The gap between audience and critics review is quite large although it may be due to vote stacking." Moreh GAI (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

See the very first thread on this talk page. The difference in the scores are not notable on the basis that no reliable sources have commented on the difference. I agree that some critics probably have gotten their politics in the way of the review (I noted a couple cases in the first thread), but there are no reliable sources discussing this (no surprise), so therefore it cannot be sourced on Wikipedia. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

Please put the audience score in critical reception, or even in it's own section, since it is vastly different from the critic's score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.166.109 (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please see the previous discussions above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Awful treatment

Why are you guys hating on rotten tomatoes? Use google please (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

So there's a number of problems here. For one, the standard procedure on Wikipedia is WP:BRD. You have something you want to add or change, so you boldly make that edit, no problem. If another editor disagrees with the suitability of what you've done and reverts it, then the discussion needs to take place without you trying to restore it. I'll grant that the other editors who reverted after you started this Talk section should also have come here. Second, you need to include a citation alongside the content you're trying to add (not in an edit summary or anywhere else). You can read about how to do that at WP:CITE or just look at the numerous other citations on this article. Third, the fact that you keep using misleading edit summaries talking about Rotten Tomatoes while trying to add a review that is NOT on Rotten Tomatoes makes it seem like you're attempting some subtle vandalism. That's definitely what I thought, and the fact that the content says "HEYUGUYS", a website we've never heard of, didn't help. Why do you keep pretending this is about Rotten Tomatoes? -- Fyrael (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Because the “HEYGUYS” reviewed is source directly from rotten tomatoes, only people hate rotten tomatoes would remove direct content from rotten tomatoes Use google please (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The review from “HEYGUYS” was removed again[1] and I don't think that is unreasonable because it is not a publication I had heard of before now either, even if it does happen to be listed on Rotten Tomatoes. Also there are other positive reviews listed, why not pick one of them instead? Or better yet why not take another look at the reliable sources and see what bits they did say we're good even if the review overall was negative? The Hollywood Reporter for example did call it a "slick and compulsively watchable genre [film]". There is still plenty of potential to write a much better critical response section of someone is interested in putting in the time and effort. -- 109.77.195.1 (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Mixed criticism?

Critics' reception of this movie was overwhelmingly negative, not "mixed". 46.97.170.40 (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you think would be a fair and neutral way to describe it? Rotten Tomatoes 40% is by their standards "rotten" ie negative (but I can understand that someone might argue 40% was mixed). The Metacritic score of 13% indicates "overwhelming dislike” and to claim the reviews were mixed feels like editors are ignoring Metacritic. How can we strike a balance between those two and describe it from a fair and neutral point of view? (Please note that based on past discussions https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48#Mixed_to_positive_%2F_Mixed_to_negative "mixed to negative" is not an option). -- 109.77.195.1 (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

None of RT's top critics gave the film a positive review, and most of the positive ratings that do exist are along the lines of "it's not as terrible as it could've been" and "if you can somehow watch this without subscribing to DW, it will probably be worth watching". What little praise this film got is faint at best, while the negative criticism is very clear and unambiguous. You're going to have a hard time finding anyone defending this movie who isn't pushing a "culture war" agenda. A bad film is a bad film, and negative reception is negative reception. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I edit all kinds of film articles and try to be objective, editors are supposed to assume WP:GOODFAITH and not label everyone they disagree with as some sort of biased culture warrior (even if a pattern of edits suggests someone in glass houses is throwing stones, and cares very much about hot social topics). Objectively 40% on Rotten Tomatoes is not "panned". I reverted to the previous WP:STATUSQUO of "mixed", it is a fairly broad definition of mixed but at least that way the WP:LEAD] and the reception section are not inconsistent. It might better to simply let the aggregator scores speak for themselves. This clearly needs further discussion. -- 109.79.74.60 (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

IP users have recently made a series of edits to the lede and the critical reception section, adding information that straight up contradict the sources. They falsely claim that the film received positive reviews in the lede, and that it received mixed reviews in the article itself, both of which is false. Critical reception of the film was overwhelmingly negative, as evidenced by sources, as well as the article itself. I also recommend protecting this article. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That obvious vandalism was promptly reverted by other editors, and no discussion was necessary.

I have removed from the Reception section the attempt to summarize Rotten Tomatoes 40% and Metacritic 13% as "mixed" as it seems like the best thing to do is to let the scores speak for themselves. -- 109.79.74.60 (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The lede still said "mixed". I took the liberty of correcting that. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You took liberties all right. You did not follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain your changes with an edit summary. You again chose to claim that critics panned the film despite the Rotten Tomatoes score of 40%. Deleting that sentence entirely would be less biased. -- 109.79.74.60 (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because I accidentaly forgot to add a summary to an edit, that I was already discussing on the talk page, doesn't make that edit wrong. As I stated before, none of the 40% of RT critics that gave the film a positive review are considered "top critics" by the site, and considering the fact that the film is only available to DW subscribers and was not pre-screened for critics, there's a heavy slant in favor of critics that would be more favorable towards the film and as I stated above, even the positive reviews for the film are damning by faint praise. All but one of the individual reviews deemed notable in the article are unambiguous in their negativity, and even the one positive review is unconvincing. Not to mention 40% IS a negative rating on Rotten Tomatoes, while the other review agregate has a rating of an abysmal 13%. Calling the critical reception poor or negative IS the unbiased take here. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It is difficult to take edits in WP:GOODFAITH when editors do not follow WP:SIMPLE rules and the basic courtesy of explaining their changes with an edit summary, but as you have made the effort to continue the discussion we can put that aside and move on.

The scores: Rotten Tomatoes 40%; Metacritic 13%. I don't think Rotten Tomatoes should be ignored but I also I do not think Metacritic should be ignored either and we should try and find a balance between the two. Weighing up those two overviews, and on balance summarizing them as "poor or negative" would be reasonable yes, only that that is not what 46.97.170.40 did, instead he went further and more negative and said the film was "panned". Unless you have a WP:SECONDARY source that specifically uses the word "panned" it would be better not to use that more harsh description. There is a difference between "generally negative", "overwhelmingly negative" and "panned", so if an editor decided to change the intro to say the reviews were "generally negative" instead of "mixed", I might disagree but I would not need to revert as that would be enough to satisfy WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. -- 109.76.203.12 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede that I do not fully understand the distinction between "poorly received" and "panned" as english is not my first language. As long as we agree that 40% on RT (which is the higher of the two scores) still leans towards negative, rather than mixed. Mixed to negative at the absolute best. Take the Metacritic score into consideration and the question becomes rather one-sided. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Big, bigger, biggest. Bad, worse, worst. Panned is more than bad, it is worst. There have been many discussions about the appropriate wording to use Critical responses sections, one such discussion[2] reiterated the principle of WP:Reliable sources and trying to avoid saying anything that is not already said directly by the sources. -- 109.76.133.188 (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Plot description omits explanation for how Todd gets to where he can shoot Chris

The plot description only mentions that he is Zoe's father. How is it that he is in a position to shoot Chris? Is Todd a law enforcement officer? Is he just a devoted father who owns and is comfortable with firearms? If might be useful for people reading the article, if that is explained.TheBaron0530 (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Guns are easily accessible (too easy some would say) but this probably does not really require further explanation in the plot section. Also the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines require brevity, not every detail can be explained in the plot section. It might be appropriate to expand the Production section with more information about the writing and development of the script, or to further explain the background context of high school shootings that may seem strange to non American readers.

In any case the production section does already say "The opening shot of the film, which features the main character hunting deer with her father" (also shown in the trailer) which explains why Todd has a gun readily available. -- 109.76.203.12 (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Audience scores are not allowed

Maybe it is a good sign that new editors are not yet familiar with the many rules and guidelines of Wikipedia or maybe it is a bad sign that old editors are just terrible at following the rules (see above), but someone has once again added the Rotten Tomatoes user score to this article and it needs to be reverted ASAP.[3] (I would have reverted it already myself but it appears this article is locked until 2023.)

User generated content (including user voted web polls) is not reliable and not allowed as source for Wikipedia. Please read the guidelines on user generated content WP:UGC and WP:RS. -- 109.78.200.247 (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)