Talk:Trainwreck (film)

There are two possibilities here:

1) The statement is a clear, obvious statement, based on the information sourced later and everyone would agree it is as obvious as it is accurate. In this case, the sentence is redundant, adds nothing, restates the other stuff and says the same thing over and over again.

2) The statement combines information from more than one source and summarizes it in a non-obvious way. In this case, the statement is synthesis.

Take your pick. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Wikipedia articles dealing with films contain similar statements: e.g., The Blair Witch Project, The Perks of Being a Wallflower (film), ParaNorman, Wild (film) ... no time to try to list them all. Google search will confirm this. I could claim that it's more unusual for a film's article not to contain such a statement, but that would be original research.

I assert that there is no consensus to remove such a statement, which is just a reasonable summary of the cited material. NameIsRon (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I assert that there is no consensus to add this ... whatever it is. Is it a redundant, repetitive restatement of what one source says or is it a combination of what more than one source says?

Without the statement, the article says what the sources say. With the statement, the article says what the sources say and gives your interpretation of what all of the sources together say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see that it "received positive reviews from critics". Is that from the 85% on RT or the 75 on Metacritic? At what point would lower numbers no longer justify that wording? 80% and 70? 70% and 55? 51% and 51? Whatever numbers you choose, where did you get that break point? It's your opinion. As evidence of this, consider that you changed it to this wording from "very well received by most critics". Is that other editor's opinion "wrong"? No, it is their opinion. How do we choose which person's opinion to include in Wikipedia? We don't. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I was simply restoring the text as it appeared on 26 July. The sentence in question has been edited several times since its original appearance on 19 March ("Trainwreck has received acclaim from critics" ... 28 May: "Trainwreck has received early positive reviews from critics" ... 11 July: "Trainwreck has received positive reviews from critics.") The editors generally provided summaries to explain their choice of words. So far, there have been three editors who wanted to provide a summary of the critical reception to date, and there is one editor who has objected to the idea. I wasn't choosing any editor's text, just intending to restore the text that was there on 26 July, because I saw no way to improve on it. NameIsRon (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You chose one unsourced opinion over three other opinions, directly removing one opinion in the process. How did you decide that particular opinion is the opinion Wikipedia should support? Why should we ignore one of our pillars in this particular case? - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I know that the 2015 Lafayette shooting is not about the film, however - It is a disservice to users to not include any mention of the shooting at all, at least as a See also. KConWiki (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with linking to it in the "See also" section. I added a description to indicate the connection. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it could have a place in the article. We have Amy Schumer expressing sympathies on Twitter, as well as this. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the summary of the Aurora shooting from this article, it's irrelevant apart from it also took place at a theater in the same huge country in the same decade. The attacks were completely unlinked, it would be different if Group X had targeted these two films in co-ordination. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

There is also this which may be relevant to include here. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:2:d360:6d17:6cd5:d03c:6b9a (talk • contribs) 12:29, September 7, 2015‎

So fix it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)