Talk:Hearts and Minds (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:HeartsandMindsDVD.jpg

Image:HeartsandMindsDVD.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 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 23:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Coker entry

I reverted this edit in light of the ongoing dispute on the Coker talk page. Please resolve before putting it back into this article. Dreadstar † 03:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the nature of the dispute that would justify removal of a description of a major character and his role in the film from an article about the film? Why shouldn't dispute resolution be used to justify removal of the material here, where its presence seems inarguable? Alansohn (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That exact same content has been under heated dispute on the Coker talk page. Inserting that exact same text into this article, text which is currently under dispute on a protected, related article appears to be evading that block, so you’re lucky you weren’t blocked. This is a blatant violation of WP:POINT. The Coker segment is only ten minutes long and is not the main point of H&M, yet the content you inserted was one-third of the entire H&M article, so this is also a violation of WP:UNDUE. It seems that if you were truly interested in improving the H&M article, you’d have written a full, balanced and neutral review of it, not merely insert just the Coker material. For instance, Westmoreland’s quote in the film far more important that Coker’s, yet you totally ignored that, as with every other aspect of the film.

There are also BLP issues that have been under discussion, and neither side needs to repeat that here.

Therefore, I need to ask: why is it that you’re only interested in Coker and this one small part of Coker’s life? What exactly is your goal in all this? The mere fact that something happened does not mean it needs to be in his article; for example, not everything that FDR did is in his article.

I’m not engaging in the content dispute, I’m protecting the articles from edit warring and applying policy and guideline to the dispute and the articles. Please discuss this on the Coker talk page with the other editors, and do not spread the same dispute to other articles. Once that discussion has found consensus, then the H&M article contents vis-à-vis Coker can be worked out. Dreadstar † 18:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please try for a second to view this disaster from my perspective, and try to read this and review my actions from what I have faced in trying to edit this article and the George Thomas Coker article in good faith.

The material regarding Coker was added to this article on January 17 (see diff), two days before your original protection on the George Thomas Coker was to have ended and two days before you extended the protection for another two weeks (see diff), never having made any statement about a possible extension. The material was added here because it belongs here. It's about the one individual who appears the most in the film, by my educated calculation. The claim that your protection of the Coker article meant that the material could not be added anywhere else in Wikipedia under any circumstances is extremely hard for me to swallow, especially as those terms were never specified. As the text was added when it appeared that your block was going to expire and was added to this article where even you acknowledge it is relevant (as you'd be fine if every other person included in the film was mentioned here), the claim of "evading the block" is simply unjustifiable. The claim that my edit here was a means to evade your block and done in violation of WP:POINT is a baseless personal attack.

In an article about a film, adding text about the primary individual chosen by the filmmakers to represent the pro-Vietnam War side of the argument, and who appears in about 10% of the film, would seem to me to be the one place where there would be no argument whatsoever for its inclusion. If I had been doing other research about Westmoreland or Walt Rostow -- and I haven't -- I would have been glad to add material about them here. As I have nothing about anyone else I cannot add it, and the demand that I must write a feature article about the film in order to be eligible to include details I had already researched about a major character in the film is ludicrous on its face. In an article that needs to be expanded, WP:Undue can be easily abused to remove anything (not that I am claiming that this is why you did that here). As teh article stands, why is there so little about the film, and so much about what transpired at the Oscar ceremonies? I have no idea, but arguing that it should be removed because there's not enough balancing material about the film would make a mockery of the policy, yet it could be read as the logical extension of your argument. To take it a step further, the entire article places undue weight on the material it includes, and the entire article should be deleted. Use of WP:Undue is extremely shaky grounds to remove sourced material directly relevant to the film.

Your further charge that I am not "truly interested in improving the H&M article" is baseless and comes across to me as a personal attack. The only "point" I have here is to ensure that neutral, properly-sourced information that belong in Wikipedia is placed somewhere. If there truly is a WP:BLP issue, no one has articulated why the latest version of the text I have proposed violates this policy in any way, shape or form, either here or in the Coker article. The text I have suggested is relevant, notable and thoroughly-sourced. I would be happy to respond to any requests for further changes based on Wikipedia policy, but none have been offered. No other participant in this discussion has shown any effort at finding a mutually-agreeable compromise, but my efforts at finding acceptable wording are repeatedly treated as "bad faith", a pattern perpetuated in your response here to my edit, as it appears to me.

I resent your bad faith implication that my efforts to add sourced material about Coker in any way demonstrates that I have some sort of agenda to defame Lt. Coker ("Therefore, I need to ask: why is it that you’re only interested in Coker and this one small part of Coker’s life? What exactly is your goal in all this?"). As I have repeatedly stated, my initial interest in the article was to specify the county on New Jersey he lived in. It would take trivial effort on your part to see that in the hour before I edited the Coker article, I made similar edits to Mary Jo Codey, Lauren Cohan and Lizabeth Cohen. Coker was next in alphabetical order and I revised a category in his article (see diff). I did research to confirm his place of residence, and once I had a reliable source my next edit added details regarding Coker to the Linden, New Jersey article (see diff). My subsequent edits included articles about Vera Coking and Corinne Alsop Cole, the next two individuals in alpha order in Category:People from New Jersey. I only found out about the film when User:Rlevse reverted an edit where another editor had added a link to the film over a week after my first edit, claiming that it was removed at the subject's request (see diff). If you are actually going to impugn my motives for editing this article, you're going to have to do a heck of a job explaining this edit history. My good faith efforts to add the source required to support Coker's role in the film per WP:BLP and to satisfy what I thought was User:Rlevse's request that a source be provided, has gotten me into a spiral where any action I take is treated as malicious in a spectacular display of bad faith.

Half the Coker article is about exhaustive details of his scouting career, a fantastic example of undue weight, such as the unsupported (and unsupportable) statement that "When Coker returned to Linden after being released from captivity, the Scouts were his biggest supporter." Yet, there is absolutely no detail about the period following his release other than the fact that he went to college. There are absolutely no details of what Coker's attitude and opinions were regarding his captivity or his captors. Nothing. A glaring omission, when it is clear that there are multiple sources that address his role in Hearts and Minds, in which he speaks at length about his military service in Vietnam and answers questions about his opinions regarding the North Vietnamese. It is inarguable that these details are relevant and notable. There is excruciating details about scouting, and a mention of a film in which his last name is presumably the one mentioned, but there are no details regarding his captivity. Why? Therefore, I need to ask: why you are so determined to see that this information is NOT included in the article? Why does it appear to me that you are taking sides in this process?

There is no edit warring going on in this article on my part, nor will there be. Your removal of my edit -- when no other editor has raised any issue about it -- only appears to me to be interfering with a good faith effort to find an appropriate place to add this material. If you're going to attack me, go through the facts, review my edit history of these and other related articles and determine if any of your claims have any validity. As they don't, I expect an apology for your multiple personal attacks here and the bad faith you have displayed in making your attacks here. Restoring this article to the way it stood before your removal would be a small step in the right direction of showing the good faith that has been sorely lacking here.

If you still truly believe that your actions here and at the Coker article are enforcing a policy, you will have to explain the specific terms that you believe are being violated, provide a rather clear justification for why this material cannot be included here, and specify in clear detail what will be necessary to satisfy these issues. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is so wrong! I was bold and added it back. There seems to be a COI here, which has spread from the Coker article. Wikipedia policy holds up to this, not COI and those who want to censor. This is not a BLP issue, the documentary is there for anyone to view. The entry is well sourced to reliable sources. This info was in this article before the Coker article was protected. It should not follow over to other articles. Wow, just wow. ←Gee♥Alice 05:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've expressed my concerns above about WP:UNDUE and the ongoing dispute about the same content on hthe Coker talk page.

Also, since there have been WP:BLP concerns raised, I suggest resolving it there before bringing the same content here. WP:CON also needs to be found - I suggest you focus on those issues. Dreadstar † 05:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Complaints of WP:UNDUE have already been conclusively rebutted above. No WP:BLP issues have been raised at this article; If you have specific complaints that you feel violate this policy for the text added here, you need to address them here with complete details of the alleged policy violation. As consensus here is clear that the content related to Lt. Coker belongs here, I suggest that you pursue appropriate dispute resolution measures to seek its removal. Alansohn (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've self-reverted my reversion of the material to allow for other editors to comment. I believe it is undue weight because now a full one-third of the article is about Coker..but the movie does not appear to be about him, he's just a short clip in the film. As for the rest of it, I suggest you disccuss it with the other editors on the Coker talk page. As for consensus, I don't see any consensus here or on the Coker talk page. Dreadstar † 05:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your self-revert of your earlier removal of sourced content related to Lt. Coker is a clear and positive step in the right direction. I have already added material regarding William Westmoreland's role in the film. While I so not see any relevance of the policy to this article, I will be more than happy to consider and make other additions that you may deem appropriate to address your concerns of WP:UNDUE. I will attempt to address any constructive suggestions made here at the article's talk page. Alansohn (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm glad you added Westmoreland. That should help balance it out, and not just pick on Coker. I was looking for others to balance it out, but got side-tracked. Oh, and thanks Dreadstar, it doesn't take away from Coker at all, IMO, it shows he is human. Especially what he went through. The Vietnam War was not easy for a lot of people. It was the worst, as far as support all the way around, and the troops experienced a lot of harassment. This after seeing and experiencing some horrible stuff. Hopefully readers are smart enough to realise that. I think most are. :) ←Gee♥Alice 08:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sobran ref

I have a PDF scan of the Sobran ref if anyone is interested. You can get it through library databases such as EBSCO too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Desson footnote quote

Regarding the current Desson footnoted quote debate, this particular quote is totally redundant, adds nothing to the article, and its points appear immediately after the footnote right in the article itself. Since there is no consensus to have it there, per WP:FN and the arb case ruling on this issue, it should be removed. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with R. There is no consensus for this. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. No consensus for this completely redundant quote in the footnotes. Dreadstar † 14:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The relevant quote is here in this article and in the Coker article, and after seven months of delays at Coker that's really all that matters. Rlevse, I'd love to see this supposed Arbcom ruling that supports the removal of footnoted quotes. As an admin, as an Arbcom clerk and most disconcertingly as a bureaucrat, it is extremely disturbing that claims of this nature would be made that are so utterly contradicted by the facts of the case, in which Arbcom refused to address the issue of quotations in footnotes in its entirety. Alansohn (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom case said it is a content issue, which means consensus should be reached which is also supported by WP:FN requiring consensus, so no this is not a contradiction. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I would use the word "misrepresentation", not "contradiction", as the Arbcom case simply does not support removal of quotations. Again, after seven months, reliably sourced material about the quotation is finally in both this article and the Coker article. As the quotation will not be deleted from either article, which is where it is most important that it belongs, I will avoid being dragged into a conflict on the matter of footnoted quotes. Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither word is correct, Rlevse is right on target that the ArbCom case clearly stated that the question of footnoted quotes was a content issue, and this clearly falls under a content dispute requiring consensus. You're the one prolonging this conflict by continuing to attack Rlevse, I strongly suggest you focus on the editorial content of the article and stop making comments about other contributors. Dreadstar † 17:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say I have already focused on editorial content, writing about half of both this and the Coker article and adding the majority of sources at both. Again, the most important issue is that the quotation and its reliable sources is in both articles and that content issue has finally been resolved. Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the second part of my comment, as they're connected; your comments in this very section are evidence that you have not focused entirely on the content and have continued to comment on another contributor. Dreadstar † 18:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite the reverse. Despite repeated claims that I was some sort of anti-Vietnam war kook seeking to defame Mr. Coker, I have proven that I can take an article about a subject I know absolutely nothing about and add the content needed to establish that reliably-sourced relevant material belongs in these articles. I couldn't be any more focused. My focus is on adding content, not removing it or keeping it out of articles. I couldn't be any more focused on adding content. Read this article and George Thomas Coker and look at the edit history of both articles if you have any questions about that. Unless you have a response relevant to the content of this article, I'm done with this thread. I will allow you make the last response. Alansohn (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Temp move

"These techniques heavily influenced Michael Moore and his making of Fahrenheit 9/11."

I don't find the word "heavily" and I do find the word "influenced" but not in this context in the reference. If I am wrong put it back in. But I don't see where Moore says he was influenced, otherwise it should be "so and so believes Moore was heavily influenced". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll reword it and put it back in. As for pay sites, to quote WJBscribe: "There is no requirement on Wikipedia that sources must be free or easily accessible. The fact that articles can only be viewed for a free or through a library archive does not mean it should not be used as a source. The point is that it could be checked if someone wished to. Far more obscure sources are used on Wikipedia that would require much higher costs - including translation - for many to review. The quality of Wikipedia would be seriously compromised if we insisted that sources had to be freely and easily available online" — Rlevse • Talk • 10:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking to a pay site

I think its best to quote Wikipedia policy and not quote other editors or other admin people. Sites requiring registration: "Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers. Many online newspapers require registration to access some or all of their content, while some require a subscription. Online magazines frequently require subscriptions to access their sites or for premium content. If old newspaper and magazines articles are archived, there is usually a fee for accessing them. A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference." I could see adding the link if there was a free abstract as is with the New York Times, but linking to a paywall without an abstract is in violation of the above rule. If you think the rule should be changed it is probably best to lobby for the change at the Wikipedia:External links rule page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Weren't links to pay sites removed at George Thomas Coker for this exact reason (this diff)? If anything, The New York Times usually provides a paragraph or two from the article, allowing some verification of the source even for non-subscribers; the Ebsco link included here takes you to a login page, which accomplishes absolutely nothing for a nonsubscriber. While I have no objection to linking to a fee-based site -- those who can link there can read the article, those who can't can always go to their library -- we ought to aim for some bare measure of consistency in how this policy is implemented. Without some explanation of why the Ebsco link adds anything to the article, the Ebsco link should be removed and replaced with an unlinked reference to National Review for all those heading to the library. Alansohn (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that pay site reference in the Coker article is currently in place, and was originally replaced by a link with information leading to the free NYT archive of the article. However, WP:CON allowed for the pay-site to be restored. WP:FN allows for WP:CON at the individual article level. Dreadstar † 15:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

First, WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy. Second, WP:EL specifically refers to "external links that are not citations of article sources". As Rlevse and WjBscribe indiciate, "There is no requirement on Wikipedia that sources must be free or easily accessible. The fact that articles can only be viewed for a free or through a library archive does not mean it should not be used as a source. The point is that it could be checked if someone wished to. Far more obscure sources are used on Wikipedia that would require much higher costs - including translation - for many to review. The quality of Wikipedia would be seriously compromised if we insisted that sources had to be freely and easily available online". Dreadstar † 15:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What is added to the article by a blank login page at Ebsco that says nothing about the article?

Tell people what the publication is and let them run off to the library if they choose to. Alansohn (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No matter how you want to slice it, there is nothing that prosribes a pay site or foreign language material from being used as a ref. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Isn't there any positive review of the film to provide balance. The criticism is from the National Review which is good, but the other negative comments are from non notable reviewers, it looks like the internet was scoured for bad reviews, with out any balancing reviews from notable reviewers that are themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles. Is there more from the Vincent Canby review with anything positive to say? The article looks like it was written for Conservapedia, especially when it had the misquoted information about Michael Moore. I have added the direct quote to the reference for the MM info. Previously I had to read the entire reference article three times, just to find out it was misquoted. That is not fair to the reader, or researcher, its very easy to misquote a source article, accidentally or intentionally, if you don't provide the reader with the actual quote in the reference. This was a perfect case. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is mention of the film's inclusion in a "25 Docs You Must See Before You Die" series. But I must agree that the individuals and sources quoted in the criticism section are hardly representative of scholarly criticism or of meaningful sources. I assume that this was not merely an effort to provide a negative slant to the article and that other reviews will be added to reflect a more thorough perspective on the film in keeping with WP:NPOV. Alansohn (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a positive review for balance, go for it. I'm sure they're out there. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean you couldn't find any or you were simply unwilling to add them? Including only negative material, without any attempt at providing balance, violates basic Wikipedia principles. WP:NPOV is policy. Alansohn (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Rlevse's comment is very clear and your question "you were simply unwilling to add them?" is a show of bad faith. It's just as much on you to find sources for "balance" as it is on anyone else. Dreadstar † 16:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith would be insisting that the material was added in a biased manner. Asking a question, as I did, is a means to discern what motives were behind the one-sided edits. Adding a one-sided series of criticism is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, a bedrock principle of Wikipedia. Was Rlevse unable to find any source that had anything positive to say about the film? Alansohn (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

AS, rather than arguing about this, why don't you just find the sources and add them? No one is stopping you; on the contrary, we're encouraging you to do it. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith means that you assume the best of intentions, something you are not doing when you attempt to "discern what motives were behind the one-sided edits". "Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it" - and I don't think you have any "strong evidence" to the contrary in this case. I strongly recommend that you stop making comments about Rlevse and focus instead entirely on the editorial content of the article, which means going out and finding the sources you believe are there - not continuing to attack another editor by making such insinuations. Dreadstar † 16:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't a criticism section that only includes negative reviews one-sided? The statement that "If you can find a positive review for balance, go for it. I'm sure they're out there" clearly implies either that no "positive review" could be found. Any search of reviews will find ones that are positive, yet not a single one has been added. Adding editorial content that only pushes one side is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, a basic fundamental principle of Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's called a criticism section for a reason, if you believe it should be a Film criticism section, then rename it and address the "one sided" content. Again, I urge you to quit making unfounded accusations and insinuations. WP:NPOV is not a behaviorial policy, it is a content policy - that "not a single one has been added" is just as much your responsibility as it is any other editor's. Dreadstar † 17:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is violated when a selective bias is used to include discussion of the film. While other editors may be able to undo the bias, the obligation on each editor is to provide neutrally descriptive information about the subject. While a one-sided approach might be appropriate in a separate article, say "Carefully chosen articles criticizing Hearts and Mind", using a section header as a justification for biased editing is inexcusable and would appear to be a clear cut violation of WP:NPOV. Alansohn (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The content in the criticism section provides missing critical context to the content and quotes presented in the Hearts and Minds (film)#Featured individuals section - indeed, missing in the entire article. Even now, the content you added on Coker is approximately 18% of the article's prose, whereas his appearance was in only 4.5% of the film itself - and not in a pivotal or crucial role, so if you want to start pointing the NPOV finger, I suggest you point the finger at yourself first.

Further, your suggestion that criticism be in a separate article would violate Wikipedia:Content forking, whereas criticism in a criticism section is a well-established and accepted way to present content critical of a subject.

You can try to put any face on it you like, but the bottom line is that there's is absolutely no violation by the editor who added the content in the criticism section. What's inexcusable is your persistence in making unfounded accusations against another editor on this talk page instead of finding sources and addressing any WP:NPOV issues you see in the article. If you persist in this tendentious attack on Rlevse, then we can just take this right up the chain starting with WP:AE. Dreadstar † 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't suggest that it belongs in another article; I stated that it's presence in an article critical of the film might be a fig leaf of an excuse for unbalanced edits. What should be done, and what is required by WP:NPOV, is to present a neutral and balanced perspective of the film, and in this the current edits violate this policy. The difference is that Coker appears in the film, is one of the individuals who appears most in the film, and is the individual who is almost certainly the most cited in reviews of the film. In the edits here, the film reviews were carefully selected to reflect one side -- and only side -- of the film, in direct violation of WP:NPOV. From a dispute resolution perspective, I think POV pushing and other biased editing starts at WP:NPOVN and then goes to WP:ANI. Hopefully we can get a more prompt resolution this time around. Alansohn (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolution of what? No one is stopping you from adding reviews from "the other side," quite the contrary, everyone on this page has recommended that you do so. The only thing you've been asked to stop are these continual bad faith accusations, innuendo and attacks on other editors. If you think something needs to be resolved beyond those issues, then by all means take it to ANI or NPOVN. Dreadstar † 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia works is that each editor is obligated to write neutrally-worded, balanced material in articles. That's what WP:NPOV is all about. As NPOV states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.... NPOV weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance" Balance is not making biased, one-sided edits to an article, and then leaving other editors to address the policy violation, presumably by adding equal and oppositely biased statements to provide some sort of "balance". This is a deeply fundamental Wikipedia policy, and one that no editor has an excuse for violating. I do not claim that I am being somehow impeded from adding material here at this article; I am asking that the clear policy violation be addressed by the editor who violated the policy in question. I have no interest in perpetuating a cycle of improper edits by adding exclusively pro-film material. I will be happy to add material that reflects a balanced view of the critical views of the film, both pro and con, as I and all editors are obligated under WP:NPOV. Alansohn (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No one says that other reviews must appear under the criticism header. Balancing it with other reviews under the main header is fine. I could stack bad reviews for any movie and make it appear to have received universal condemnation, just as any movie can selectively use good reviews such as "... stunning" in their ads. Alansohn don't you have access to the NYT article, I am sure you can find a good quote. Currently the Canby article is just used to support facts on the movie, not commentary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, no one said that. However, to avoid confusion with other similiarly titled sections per Wikipedia:Criticism, I recommend changing the section heading. I also recommend being cautious in using any media hype when adding content to the article, making sure it's sourced and properly attributed. Dreadstar † 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We all agree here, positive reviews of the film are welcome, so if you want to add them, go add them. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV could not be any clearer as to your obligations as an editor to add balanced material, not to have other editors fix what you've done. I'll be happy to point you to sources, such as Google, which have ample sources -- including dozens of negative, neutral and even positive reviews -- to help you address your violation of WP:NPOV. If you are unwilling to address your biased editing, I will try to take the time to clean up the violation. Alansohn (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree here, if you have access to Canby gets some quotes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Review resources

If any editors have an interest in expanding the "Critical reception" section, there are a number of useful starting points that can lead to useful reliable sources about the film, above and beyond those available in standard web searches. This paper is already included in the article, and is probably one of the more balanced views of the film. In addition to the views included therein, it provides about two dozen references to other articles and reviews, both positive and negative, that can be a useful jumping off point for additional research. http://www.rialtopictures.com/grisbi_xtras/hearts_links.html This link from the film's producers] provides an extensive list of (pretty much exclusively) positive reviews about the film. Alansohn (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:TrangBang.jpg

The image Image:TrangBang.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Mizabot

I added auto-archiving by mizabot to this talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 15:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)