Talk:What Is a Woman?/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lack of balance in Critical reception section

The Critical Reception section acknowledges from the start that "most critics have refused to review What Is A Woman". So, it is not surprising that there would be far more reviews from conservative site that are supportive of the documentary than those that don't.

But the number of positive vs negative reviews in an ideological subject like this one is not likely to be accurately representing the "Critical" consensus on the documentary from the perspective of an unbiased resource like Wikipedia. Especially when it is created by an avowed Christian, and someone who has gone publicly on the record that he is looking forward to making people cry over his book (https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1537254563979350018)

At this time, the section lists 24 distinct reviews. In my evaluation, 2 are neutral, 16 are supportive of the documentary's ideology (note: Note, not evaluating it on TECHNICAL merits, but specifically the SUBJECT matter being discussed), and 6 criticize it's approach and ideology.

Out of the 16 listed supportive critical reviews, 5 - almost 1/3 are from overtly Christian or Catholic sources, bringing a further lack of critical or impartial tint to the subject. (That is, these critics are predispositioned to support the documentary based on its agenda)

I propose the section is not an accurate representation of the overall "critical reception" of the documentary. There are plenty of left leaning sources that DID review the documentary and are not included leading to an inaccurate summary of the critical view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npinguy (talk • contribs) 07:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Most of the reviews are from conservative and Christian news outlets, so the reception section will reflect this fact, meaning it is not undue weight. Reception from critics is inherently unequal. Wikipedia is also not here to right great wrongs, but to cover what other sources are saying. You say there are "plenty of left leaning sources that DID review the documentary and are not included", but you haven't provided links to any of these left-wing reviews. Please share them if you can. Removing all Christian sources from the section also isn't balanced at all. I have removed some more unreliable left-wing and conservative sources, but that's because the section was getting too long. X-Editor (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

how about we look towards the 5000+ reviews from Rotten Tomatoes? critics were obviously afraid of activist backlash, threats, and likely consequences for their professional careers. but reception has been overwhelmingly positive. a few very loud far-left voices are not the consensus, just how far-right views are not the consensus on gun rights. BasX88 (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I just read through the criticism section. The current revision does seem to cover quite a wide range of criticism, both positive and negative, BUT: it would vastly improve the section if they were organized into positive, neutral, and negative subsections. I'd be happy to go through and sort them but I'd like to hear what others have to say on the subject first. NemoImportans (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Many of the positive links have praise and criticism and should be in the mixed review section. The first positive review isn’t a review of the film but a criticism of the lefts refusal to watch. I can help work on the categorizing of the critical reception and maybe get a few more from each side - ideally with a unique insight and not just a repeat of the others. Pdogtreefrog (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Example positive critical reception:

Jack Wolfsohn of the National Review asserted that "Most critics have refused to review What Is a Woman? because of the stance Walsh takes", citing Walsh sharing "some of the responses from critics who were invited to critique the film" and refused to do so.

That's not a positive review of the film. That's a claim that critics are refusing to review the film based on a statement that Walsh gave him. Pdogtreefrog (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Christian Toto is currently listed as an Author for the Daily Wire. This could be a perfectly honest review but if it's going to be cited as a critical reception the relationship between Toto, Walsh, the Daily Wire, and Hollywood in Toto (the site used to publish the review) should be disclosed. Christian Toto wrote that "Walsh's elementary question leads to larger, disturbing queries", but said the documentary "could use some hard data, along with more experts" and empathy towards transgender people.

Please sign your posts using ~~~~ -- 109.79.163.199 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

From the perspective of a reader interested to learn more about the Controversy surrounding this film I'm actually surprised that the Critical response section is as good as it is, but I have some issue with the emphasis and if any of this should really be listed in the "Critical response" section at all. As someone who sometimes edits Wikipedia film articles I am disappointed that reviews from actual film critics are not clearly separated from the opinion pieces and political commentators, like Wikipedia film articles would normally do. I think there needs to be substantial reorganization of what has been included so far. I find all the comparisons to Michael Moore particularly funny, because this film is not funny, frankly the documentary is boring. I am disappointed that some critics claim they are not reviewing it on principle, rather than standing on the higher principle of actually watching it before reviewing it and separating the technical merits from any political values (or lack of value). After all, Richard Roeper damned a bad film with faint praise by saying "it's in color. And, it was mostly in focus". -- 109.79.163.199 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You're getting into WP:NOTAFORUM territory in the latter half of your comment. I'm honestly not even sure what the difference is between actual film critics, opinion pieces and political commentators reviewing this documentary and there seems to be lots of overlap between these three categories. The problem is that many "actual" film critics haven't even touched the documentary, so the next best thing is opinion pieces and political commentators. Some of the reviews in the "positive" section do offer critiques of the documentary, but they are minor critiques within mostly positive reviews. X-Editor (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the heading of "Reception" would still be accurate overall, and then Critical and Idealogical/Political response could be the subsections. I should have thought of this earlier but previous political film articles like America: Imagine the World Without Her have separate Critical response and Political response sections. At the moment this article subdivides the section into positive/negative/mixed and although this does happen sometimes, that usually gets cleaned up and hopefully someone will tackle it here too. Editors should note that good articles and featured articles usually regroup critical information not by the review overall being positive or negative, but by topic, such as praise or criticism of for script, performances, sound design, vfx etc. etc. Although I may have wandered slightly offtopic in my comment this articles wanders off quite far from how film articles normally do things. I am very surprised, strike that, I'm appalled that people calling themselves film critic didn't watch the film first, then slam it anyway like a professional film critic should. Anyway I've stated my pointed that reorganization is needed, but I don't plan on editing this contentious article myself. Thank you for pushing forward. -- 109.79.168.110 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Is dividing it into headlined review sections really appropriate? While most reviews on WP are grouped together on a positive/negative basis, this seems like an attempt at making the article look FAIR and BALANCED which isn’t the purpose or meaning of WP:NPOV. Dronebogus (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The review section isn't even fair and balanced since there is way more positive reception than negative reception. The positive, negative and mixed subsections make it easier for the reader to find what they are looking for. X-Editor (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Which is… bias confirmation? Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the title says "Critical reception" but the cites are really not critical, they are ideological. A high proportion of those cited, both sides, had made up their minds before they even saw the film. A more accurate title for the section would be "Ideological receptions" or "Culture war". Tim Bray (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

That's true, which is why I changed the title. But there is still some critical reception, like the article from Radio Television of Serbia. X-Editor (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

There’s no way for them not to be. Maybe “reactions” would be more appropriate. Dronebogus (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That's true, but some of the sources still call themselves reviews, so "critical and ideological reception would still be the most appropriate. X-Editor (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

No, that’s too long. Just “reception and reactions” Dronebogus (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Advocates of transgender medicine

The lead attributes some criticism to "advocates of transgender medicine". This used to be phrased as "experts in the field of transgender medicine". I'm not sure either is well-supported by the cited sources. Are there sources that explicitly talk about reception by medical advocates/experts? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 changes

@Firefangledfeathers: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Is_a_Woman%3F&oldid=prev&diff=1172348938 what exactly is unreliably sourced and not mentioned in the body?? 2 of the sources and statements are made exactly like that in the reception section

"Ann Schneible of the National Catholic Register gave the film a B+, praising "how easily it breaks through the cognitive dissonance exhibited by supporters of gender ideologies and their inability or unwillingness to answer the simplest questions on this topic"

"Kai Burkhardt of the German newspaper Die Welt called Walsh a "conservative Michael Moore" and praised the film for stirring up America's "gender war" by efficiently asking seemingly effortless questions to supposed experts in the field, who are unable to answer."

Please stop WP:Status quo stonewalling this article! Have you even read the reception section? --FMSky (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not stonewalling. Per the essay, I stated a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions. You added a generally unreliable Daily Express source, and you added "left-leaning outlets" with no source or mention in the body. You're duplicating lead info about conservative commentators and you're moving around body content about the transphobic descriptor with no explanation. Can you please self-revert and build consensus for these disputed changes? You've already breached 3RR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

why am i not allowed to add "which most interviewees are unable to answer" when its exactly quoted like that in the reception section?

--FMSky (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It's the attributed opinion of one critic. I'm not seeing the case for elevating that to a wiki-voice statement in the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

why are you saying one when i cited at least two? FMSky (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm AGF that the Die Welt source supports that content in the body, but the other sources you added are either unreliable or don't support "most of the interviewees are unable to answer". Also, the quantity of reviews doesn't really matter, as they're opinion pieces and we shouldn't be summarizing them in wiki-voice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources calling it anti-trans are also opinion pieces though FMSky (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources such as NBC, The Independent, and the academic sources are not generally considered opinion pieces, and are often labeled as such in the source when they are (WP:RSOPINION). Llll5032 (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

They aren't, and we're not making a wiki-voice statement about "anti-trans" anyway. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Which sources said that? Llll5032 (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

read the reception section. FMSky (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you name the sources, please? Llll5032 (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I posted them at the start of this discussion --FMSky (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Do WP:GREL reports say it? Llll5032 (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

These are cites how they are currently in the article and have been for years, so I'm assuming they are reliable --FMSky (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That may be the cause of the disagreement. WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:RSN and WP:RSP describe what kinds of sources have the most WP:WEIGHT in the encyclopedia. Usually individual reviewers do not have much weight, even if they appear in reputable publications (WP:RSOPINION). Llll5032 (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

would you be ok with moving the part "It is described in some sources as anti-transgender and transphobic" in the 2nd paragraph like that:

"Walsh's approach garnered praise from conservative commentators, while drawing criticism from other sources, including advocates of transgender medicine and media outlets, who described the film as anti-transgender and transphobic"

--FMSky (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Criticism is not the word for WP:GREL news reports (see WP:SAID and WP:RSEDITORIAL). Llll5032 (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

wtf? i posted the CURRENT paragraph, the way it is CURRENTLY in the article, and just proposed an addition to it--FMSky (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Your proposal to include them after "criticism from other sources, including" would say that the WP:GREL reports were examples of criticism. Llll5032 (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Llll. I think it's reasonable to cover the major thrust of mainstream reporting before we get into summaries of reviews and commentary. Also, it's paired well where it is with Walsh's quoted "gender ideology". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This site has an extreme left-wing bias, like its not even funny. I cant believe this is even being discussed. Something needs to do done to adress this --FMSky (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

We have an WP:ACADEMICBIAS and a more general "bias" towards where weight of coverage is per WP:DUE, which usually means the mainstream; that is to say, our coverage tends to largely reflect the academic consensus and the thrust of mainstream coverage, which may not align with your view of eg. what's left-wing or right-wing, or which sources and opinions are significant. But either way you clearly can't just characterize sources as "left-leaning" or the like yourself in the article voice, and it does read like your edit was creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE with a small number of opinion pieces on one side, being weighed equal to all of mainstream coverage on the other. We can't weigh a handful of opinion pieces equal to eg. NBC, Science Based Medicine, the Intelligencer, or the The Independent. EDIT: Also, we definitely cannot say that Walsh failed to receive an answer, since the highest-quality sources are clear that he did receive an answer but he simply didn't like it (eg. [1].) --Aquillion (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

your edit was creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE with a small number of opinion pieces on one side, being weighed equal to all of mainstream coverage on the other. Thats not true if you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Is_a_Woman%3F&oldid=1172370989#Reception. reception was actually more positive than negative (hence why i initially deleted the "anti-transgender" labels from the lead as they came from a minority). the current lead however is actually the definition of WP:FALSEBALANCE in that it only highlights the negative side--FMSky (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Weight is not simply about numbers, but about quality. Citing a large number of opinion-pieces from talking heads with no expertise at low-quality outlets that all share the same bias doesn't move the needle an iota when weighed against mainstream news coverage or academic coverage by subject-matter experts. In fact, we should probably start trimming the reception section - it feels like it's turned into a WP:QUOTEFARM. A common problem in high-profile culture-war topics like this is that some editors mistakenly believe they can affect the article's tone by dumping a massive list of quotes to axe-grindy talking heads on one side into it; while it would be easy enough to find a similarly massive list of quotes from the other side, that wouldn't really improve the article. What we need to do instead is condense the opinions of non-expert talking heads down to a few sentences total, and focus more on experts or at least secondary non-opinion coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Llll5032: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Is_a_Woman%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1172372126 this edit isnt helpful at all and makes the article worse by painting a false picture. --FMSky (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your edits to the reception section because WP:STRUCTURE says, "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure." Further, such categorizing of sources involves too much synthesis by Wikipedia editors. Per WP:OR, "Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Llll5032 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)