Talk:Hillbilly Elegy (film)

Biased critics

Rotten tomatoes audience score 84%, Rotten tomatoes critics score 25%. One of the biggest disparities ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.40 (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

User ratings are not reliable because they are subject to vote stacking and demographic skew. See MOS:FILM#Audience response. Big enough parties with agendas of all partisan spectrums have abused user ratings in this way. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Even more so , a small very biased group in a position of ‘power’ does a lot of damage when their ratings conflict with randomized and statistically larger public input. Ridiculous reply to ‘biased reviewers’ . Illogical. 2603:9001:6D01:4D8D:D5B7:941C:D249:E58E (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Notable Production Entries?

Is it really notable that Ron Howard was spotted scouting locations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.156.208 (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not the most important part of the article, but it provides helpful details about the production process. Such information is not unusual in film articles. One advantage of Wikipedia over other encyclopedias is that there is not a strict limit in the amount of detail, as long as it's done reasonably and with regard to WP:WEIGHT. Sundayclose (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

An editor keeps adding "the performances of some of the cast received praise, with Close receiving supporting actress nominations at the Academy Awards, the Golden Globe Awards, and Screen Actors Guild Awards." This is not a good sentence. Yet, since they don't even know what WP:BRD is, I'm the one who is starting a discussion. (The article included "the performances of some of the cast received praise" in the lead before Razzie noms were added by another user.) ภץאคгöร 14:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Can the sentence mentioning the praise be separated from the awards mentions? It looks like the "Critical response" section covers that some performances were praised even though the film was panned (which should be mentioned in the same breath, really). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score

I have been in an edit war with a fellow wikipedia user over rotten tomatoes audience score in the critical response page. I have unfortunately been labeled as a 'Disruptive Editor' even though I did absolutely nothing wrong. All I did was add in the Rotten Tomatoes Audience score and this fellow user has been removing it. Because of this I reverted his changes, but for some reason I was labeled as the disruptive editor when this other user obviously is. I would like to have a civil conversation with this user to try to amend this wrongful edit war. Alexandernorman1245 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why Nyxaros won't have a civil conversation, but whatever. Alexandernorman1245 (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, to repeat the point of his edit summaries, which you seem not to have read: MOS:FILMAUDIENCE says what sources we can use—and how—in reporting on a film's audience reception. Read that link and tell me what you did wrong. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

First of all, my talk page clearly states "Open discussions in a new section on the talk page of the article", not on my talk page. You must comply with this. Second, you should have thought of this before you did multiple reverts. Third, there is a reason for writing edit summaries. Read them. ภץאคгöร 09:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No you should have talk with me after I reverted your first edit. when you removed audience score for no good reason I reverted it back. Once I did that YOU should have talk to me, but no you continued to remove it. And the message I got in my talk page said I could talk to you in your talk page. If you want proof here it is "If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page,". Alexandernorman1245 (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Just these two messages alone prove that you don't know much about Wikipedia. Add BOLD edit, revert, discuss to your to-read and understand list, among other things. It states why YOU are the one who should've opened a discussion after the first time your RT audience score addition was reverted. ภץאคгöร 15:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I started only a few months ago. I am new. I understand I could have done some things better, but the bottom line is that the audience score has no reason to be removed. I am new and need more time to learn about the ins and outs of wikipedia, I was not intending to be "disruptive" I was simply trying to add back the audience score because I believe that information should stay on this article. Please don't be toxic wikipedia is supposed to be a constructive place of learning. Alexandernorman1245 (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It HAS a reason to be removed. Despite receiving warnings and comments telling you what to do and what not to do, you still defend that you are right. If your goal is really to learn and not be toxic, just accept the situation and pay attention to what is written, simple as that. ภץאคгöร 15:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Then what is that reason? Why should it be removed? You still haven't said why Alexandernorman1245 (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, as noted in this edit summary, you seem to have added a source not accepted as reliable.

Can we please keep this discussion focused on content, not who posted where? Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that I (the original editor who added the audience score) got rid of the unreliable sources and kept the citation going to the rotten tomatoes website and even after this nxyaros reverted the new properly cited source. Alexandernorman1245 (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the issue is that you avoid MOS:FILMAUDIENCE, which has been mentioned multiple times. ภץאคгöร 10:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)