User talk:Filll/AGF Challenge2

Mediation questions

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lectures/lecture2-questions
• User: Vassyana
• User: PhilKnight (Addhoc?)
• User: WJBScribe
• User: Daniel (??)
• Editor Assistence WP:EA --Filll (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

More ideas

• who gives a bleep
• NY Times is not RS--Filll (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• what did Arbcomm really mean here? what did they say?
• proportion to their prominence
• dirty ganges
• Dick tation
• AIDS denialism
• gravy diarrhea
• civil baiting, disruption but politely, pushing inappropriate content but civilly

Don't link me

Editor Franklynn123 posts to editor PhantaStick's talk page a note arguing about the article History of the Portcullis. A huge debate has developed over the correct plural form of the word portcullis; one group maintains that it is portcullises, another claims it is portculli and a third group declares that it is portscullis. PhantaStick's friend editor HerbAlBurt sees this post, and is interested in it. HerbAlBurt notices that the article name History of the Portcullis is not linked in Franklynn123's post, and so when he replies to the post, he also wikilinks the phrase "History of the Portcullis" on PhantaStick's talk page. Franklynn123 takes umbrage at this wikilinking and files claims at Wikiquette Alert and AN/I stating that this is highly inappropriate and calling for HerbAlBurt to be sanctioned for editing Franklynn123's post. HerbAlBurt apologizes, but Franklynn123 becomes even angrier and demands that sanctions be levelled on HerbAlBurt.

Register your complaints here

The Register, a British technology and news website publishes a series of articles purporting to reveal a secret homosexual cult operating among the editors of Wikipedia, and including some of its upper echelon and leaders. It is claimed that the founder of Wikipedia is secretly a closet homosexual who arranges assignations with prominent male Wikipedia editors using a kind of code on Wikipedia talk pages. They claim to draw on interviews with participants at secret Wikimania homosexual orgies. The abbreviated name of the policy WP:AGF is said to be an intentional anagram of the word "FAG", and chosen on purpose to secretly signal the interests of Wikipedia's founder and its elite core of gay editors and admins.

The Register reports that Wikipedia editors looking for gay sex will supposedly signal their interests by quotation of the policy WP:AGF on talk page discussions. Allegedly, if another editor is receptive to this approach, they respond by referring to WP:NPA by the phrase "No PERSONAL Attacks". After that, arrangements are purportedly made by email for further contact.

The Register also claims that Wikipedia's Founder's short association with a female news commentator from Canada was so abbreviated since he had believed this person to be a male transexual, and was disappointed to find out she was a real female, instead of a transgender individual. The Register includes "proof" that people are easily confused about this news commentator's sexual identity consisting of closeup pictures of this Canadian woman's muscular legs and Adam's apple, and what it claims are leaked court documents that previously been sealed in Canadian court proceedings from her controversial past.

An uproar ensues on Wikipedia and on Wikipedia Review and other sites that follow activities on Wikipedia, and even starts to leak into the regular media. A group of editors want to include this material in articles about Wikipedia's founder, and about Wikipedia and this Canadian commentator.

What is appropriate?

How many reverts?

Editors A and B have been in a mudslinging battle for weeks on end. B is a proponent of assorted FRINGE beliefs, and in particular advertises on his homepage that he is a founding member of the Topeka Alien Abduction Club. B has edited several articles on Alien Abduction on Wikipedia. A is a pro-science editor, and tries to include scientific skepticism into the articles on Alien Abduction, much to B's annoyance. B deletes all scientific references which are skeptical of UFOs from the alien abduction articles.

A calls B a "deletionist", and B files a complaint alleging this constitues a violation of WP:CIVIL. A accuses B of "vandalism", and B files another complaint alleging the use of the word "vandalism" constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL. B includes links to his business selling books about alien abduction in the alien abduction articles and A accuses B of self-promotion, so B files another complaint alleging that the use of the phrase "self-promotion" constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL. After a heated exchange, A says that B should "put up or shut up" and B files another complaint alleging that the use of the phrase "put up or shut up" constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL. When B shows up to place material on A's talk page, A tells him to "get lost" and B files another compaint alleging that the use of the phrase "get lost" constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL. When A tells B that he is using a "bone-headed argument" to justify some of his edits, B files another complaint that the use of the phrase "bone-headed argument" constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL. At one point when A is exasperated after an exchange with B, A states that he is far more educated than B, and B files another complaint stating that the allusion to A's education constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL and is inappropriate argumentation. B claims that the inclusion of mainstream scientific material mocking or denigrating alien abduction beliefs is a violation of WP:BLP since it reflects badly on those who hold the beliefs, so it should not be in the articles. B therefore charges A with the violation of WP:BLP.

Some admins buy B's complaints, and A is often blocked, although he is frequently unblocked in short order. Nevertheless, his block log is long and ugly. After a very heated dispute, B appears at AN/I and accuses A of violating 3RR by presenting diff evidence of 4 reverts within 24 hours:

• 1:00 UTC
• 3:00 UTC
• 5:00 UTC
• 7:00 UTC

Several are anxious to give A a good long block, especially considering his ugly block log to teach him a lesson to be CIVIL.

Another editor notes that actually on closer inspection, the 5:00 UTC revert of A is reverting his own 3:00 UTC edit. In addition, it is shown that B has the following reverts of the same article in the same 24 hour period:

• 2:00 UTC
• 6:00 UTC
• 8:00 UTC
• 1:58 UTC (next day, just before 24 hours is up).

What do you think should be done?

The Shoe Prophet(ess)

A lady in Los Angeles had a spontaneous remission from cancer, and now believes that she has received word from God that she is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. She demonstrates her miraculous powers frequently by foretelling the future for people she meets by examining their footwear. She believes that she can tell what will happen to a given person from knowledge of the type of shoes they wear.

She develops a large following with a church and booksales and radio and television appearances. People follow her everywhere and are enthusiastic about her powers. An article is written about the Shoe Prophetess on Wikipedia.

A new anonymous editor appears and starts including information in her article about this Shoe Prophetess' business in Los Angeles, which is a film company producing pornographic videos and rock music videos featuring scantily clad young ladies. An investigation does not find any independent reliable sources for this information. After a fight, it is removed, but soon after, clearly motivated by and partly based on the information first revealed in Wikipedia, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Sun Times publish articles revealing the connection of the Shoe Prophetess to the porno business. These newspaper stories do not provide much new evidence for the Shoe Prophetess' ownership of this pornographic film company, but do reference Wikipedia, even though the information was removed from Wikipedia a while back. Several editors want to reinclude this information now that it has been published in a reliable source. Several others claim that there still is minimal independent evidence. A picture is published of an unidentified woman leaving the porno company's board meeting that looks very similar to the Shoe Prophetess, and the supermarket tabloids speculate that it must be the same person.

What should Wikipedia do in this case?

NPOV is neutral

A dispute has erupted on the Wikipedia articles about cold fusion. Several editors claim that the reason that the concept has not gained a foothold in the scientific world is an evil collusion and conspiracy lead by the oil companies, and it really works. Editors trying to insert the mainstream scientific view into the articles are fought frantically, and accused to be secretly working for the oil companies, or the CIA or the NSA or the KGB and trying to keep this information from the public. Any negative sources or critical comments are removed from the articles by those who claim that Wikipedia articles must maintain Fairness of Tone. In particular, they point to the "N" in NPOV to say that all Wikipedia articles must be neutral, and not include critical or negative information.

What should be done here?

No original research!

User AppleButtEr is editing an article about chihuahuas. There is a controversy about the colors of chihuahuas. He finds one source that states that 48 percent of chihuahuas are black according to one study. Another source claims that 65 percent of chihuahuas are black. A third reference alleges that 64 percent of chihuahuas are white or brown and the rest are black. Finally, one source describes a study where 5893 chihuahuas were examined, and 3482 were found to be black. AppleButtEr wants to convert all these figures into percentages of black chihuahuas so that they can be compared (48%, 65%, 36% and 59.1%) and then present the comparison in a table. Another editor, RunOff who has never edited the article before, appears and states that this is forbidden because it constitutes WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTH. AppleButtEr quotes policies and papers that appear to be relevant such as [1] and [2], but RunOff ignores these and continues to fight him. AppleButtEr brings in others to help him, but RunOff reveals that he is an admin and makes it clear that anyone disagreeing with his position will be blocked. When RunOff is asked about WP:AGF and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, he states that those do not apply to experienced users, but only to newbies, and wikilawyers until everyone else gives up.

How would you analyze this situation?

The US is collaborating with space aliens

A prominent belief in certain Muslim countries that is spread in the mainstream Islamic media is that the United States has a secret program to collaborate with aliens from outer space to (1) scare Muslims and (2) build space weapons to attack Muslims. As proof, they often refer to the internet video called the Alien autopsy video which some say was shown to be a hoax. Nevertheless, in the Muslim world, the "proof" that this video was a hoax perpetrated by someone trying to raise money is dismissed as US government disinformation, and the Alien autopsy video is said to be a leaked official US government video made at Area 51.

Several editors create articles on Wikipedia for propagating this theory. Text segments describing this concept are introduced in articles about the United States and UFOs and in several other articles as well. Sources are provided to articles in the mainstream Islamic media. Huge edit wars erupt.

What should be done?

Isms

In public discourse, as reported by a variety of media outlets, people have started to use the terms "choice-ist" and "abortionism" for advocates of abortion rights. Normally these have a negative connotation. Also, the terms "life-ist" and "restrictivism" are applied to those who want to restrict access to abortions. These also carry a negative connotation and are viewed as pejorative by some.

Articles about choice-ist, abortionism, life-ist and restrictivism are written for Wikipedia. There are many who claim that these articles should be deleted since the terms carry negative connotations and there are no good sources. Thirty articles, from ABC News, the BBC, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Sacremento Bee, Vancouver Sun, and China News Daily and similar sources are presented to show the use of these terms.

A huge fight ensues. It is pointed out that none of these terms appear in any dictionary. Most of the google hits are to personal blogs which are not viewed as reliable sources. The thirty articles are rejected as inadequate. Quickly 4 or 5 megabytes of talk page comments are generated, so fast that it is almost impossible to keep up, or to post without having multiple edit conflicts. The talk page is a mess and almost impossible to read, since people are so heated. Some spam the page with the 30 references over and over and over.

What should be done?

Let him who is without sin

You respond to a request for comment about a living person's biography, Janice Tightbottom. Janice Tightbottom is a prominent conservative right wing Christian commentator and media consultant. Tightbottom is well known for controversial statements in the press like "Let's nuke Mecca and Medina, and let all those diaper-head bastards fry" or "Faggots are disgusting pieces of dung and should be tortured to death. After all, are we not a Christian nation? Are we not God's Chosen? Should we not show them some of God's Mercy and Wrath? Let us smite those rump rangers, those backdoor buccaneers, those cornhole cowboys, those poophole pirates, those bunghole bandits!" She is frequently featured on Fox News television and opinion programs, and has written several books on her views. She is also somewhat notorious for having very nice legs and showing them off by wearing short skirts.

Janice Tightbottom's father is Prescott Tightbottom Jr., a retired US senator. Prescott lives in Sedona, Arizona. An anon shown by WHOIS to be editing from Sedona occasionally edits the article. When asked to get an account, a newbie appears at the talk page with the username PTightbottom, and continues to edit in the same manner as the Sedona anon.

The situation at the talk page of the Wikipedia article about Janice Tightbottom is tense, and you decide that the article has serious problems. Citations to non-notable blogs accuse Janice Tightbottom of having had a previous career as a porn star and hooker. The article is fully protected. You raise the problem of using poor quality sources at the article talk page, and some editors vehemently insist those citations should be in the article. On the talk page, one of them links to a hardcore X-rated site featuring someone who appears to be a younger version of Ms. Tightbottom in assorted sexual escapades to bolster that viewpoint. When you remove this link, someone introduces it in an edit summary with some uncomplimentary commentary to try to prevent its removal.

Arguments develop between editor PTightbottom and other editors of the article. PTightbottom claims repeatedly and angrily that there is no proof for the allegations of sexual impropriety on the part of Janice Tightbottom. However, once or twice PTightbottom argues that this material should not be included because if such things were true, they were just due to youthful curiousity and an adventuresome nature. PTightbottom goes a bit over the top a few times, and ends up banned for disruptive and unCIVIL behavior. Some claim that PTightbottom has violated WP:COI by editing the article.

When you suggest taking the discussion to a noticeboard for independent review, you are accused of playing games, and being a right wing ideologue, or a shill for the Republican Party, or a meat puppet for Tightbottom. You are accused of supporting the use of white phosphorus and "nuclear weapons like depleted uranium" in Iraq and supporting torture and the slaughter of innocent civilians.

What should be done in this case? How should the biography read? What sources should be used? How would you resolve the conflict on the talk page?

Who is a real Muslim?

Deep-seated divisions between Muslim sects over which are real Muslims lead to an increasing number of controversial statements being introduced into various Muslim articles.

• Controversial Fatwahs from obscure Mullahs of a given sect are described as "proof" of the deficiency or "proof" of the validity of that sect. For example, one Mullah from Sect 1 declared that the Hadiths suggest all married men should beat their wives weekly if they want to be good Muslims. This Mullah appears regularly on Al Jazeera promoting his views and gains some notoriety, screaming at flustered newly wed husbands that they must promise to deliver regular beatings to their wives to be true Muslims. Another Imam from Sect 2 asserts that real Muslims should drink camel urine regularly and claims that this was something Mohammed did. The followers of Sects 1 and 2 introduce these statements into the articles of other sects to "prove" other sects are not really Islam. The followers of other sects counter with different interpretations of the Koran and Hadiths and assert that the "wife beating" and "camel urine drinking" sects are not real Islam. A huge conflict between different groups of editors ensues. The largest dispute is an edit war between editors following the teaching of sect 1 (the wife beating sect) and sect 2 (the urine drinking sect). After weeks of contentious difficult editing, an off-wiki website is unveiled that declares, in part, "Wikipedia is an evil creation of the Polytheists and Crusaders! They have enabled the hated followers of Sect 2, filthy Jew-Lovers and infidels, to defile the word of Allah and spread their blasphemy! We call on all true Muslims to declare a Jihad against Wikipedia and to plant explosive devices outside Wikipedia facilities worldwide!" This is followed with a list of addresses of locations of Wikipedia offices and servers. It is signed by someone with almost the same name as one of the Wikipedia editors who claims to be a follower of Sect 1.

• A huge fight erupts over whether the Alewites are the same as the Shiites, or the Salafis are the same as the Wahabis. It is very difficult to find sources. Those on various sides of the dispute try to bolster their arguments with nonEnglish sources which you cannot read and judge.

• Since some regard the term "Wahabi" as pejorative, although it is in common use, a campaign to remove it from Wikipedia is begun.

• Several nonWahabi Sunni editors try to introduce paragraphs into articles about Wahabism and Sunni Islam claiming that the Wahabi sect, following the teaching of 18th century Sunni reformer Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab is not real Islam and was secretly created by the Central Intelligence Agency to embarass Muslims and destroy Islam. They include numerous references to Arabic media articles, some of which are translated into English, and some supposedly scholarly publications from religiously oriented universities in the Islamic World.

• Some nonShiite Moslem editors point out that the Supreme Ayatollah of the Shiites must traditionally answer a number of questions in a "thesis" or book before they can be appointed as Ayatollah. Some of these questions are hard to put in a religious context, such as whether a man is allowed to eat a chicken after he has had sex with it, or if he is allowed to cook and serve the chicken later to his friends, families and neighbors. These other Muslims claim that the requirement that the Shiite religious leaders must answer such strange questions is prima facie evidence that the Shiites are not real Muslims.

No true Scotsman

You come across an article about the Scottish Science Education League (SSEL), which advertises on its webpages that it lobbies government for the teaching of evolution in science classes in publicly funded schools, and the restriction of creationist teaching to religion classes or religious schools. The founder of the SSEL is one Matthew Rimoni, a resident of Glasgow of Italian descent.

There are 3 or 4 attempts to get the article deleted for lack of notability by assorted anons which are shown by WHOIS to originate in the UK, but you find several letters to the editor by the founders of the SSEL in prominent newspapers throughout the UK, a mention of the SSEL in the European Parliament publications, and a mention of the SSEL in the proceedings of Scottish government debates. The value of this material as sources is hotly disputed by the anons, and edit warring ensues.

The anons then introduce a section quoting a "Matt Rimoni"'s statements, found in the archives of an internet forum page 6 months previously. In the internet forum, this "Matt Rimoni" states that parents who are educating their children in a religious tradition are commmitting child abuse and should have their children taken away from them. It is removed as questionable and repeatedly reinserted. Although they are challenged about the reliability of this source, they claim this source satisfies WP:SSP and so can be used.

At this point, a new Wikipedia editor MRimoni appears to argue that this section about the internet forum quote should be removed, and that the SSEL is notable enough to have an article. The anons claim that Matthew Rimoni is the same person as Matt Rimoni and the same as the Wikipedia editor MRimoni, and that it is a violation of WP:COI to edit the article or its talk page. Some other editors claim that the inclusion of these internet forum quotes is a violation of WP:BLP, but this is rejected by the anons since this article is not a biography.

The arguing becomes heated, and one of the anons calls MRimoni a "damn wog" and a "greasy dago" and "spaghetti boy". The anons tell MRimoni that he does not have the meat balls to do anything about this article.

A friend who is an admin, RipRap, blocks the anon that is making the racial slurs against MRimoni. The other anons claim that RipRap should not have blocked the anon since they are not an uninvolved admin. RipRap has never edited the article on SSEL, but has extensively edited the intelligent design and creationism articles.

It is not free

The Institute for Quantum Healing (IQH) is a nonprofit organization that was founded in Los Angeles by several college dropouts and entrepreneurs. They claim that holding small 10 ml bottles of helium gas under their arms and humming in a particular pattern will excite the quantum energy levels of the helium, and create quantum entanglement between the helium gas atoms and electrons associated with human thought processes, called "thinkons". These thinkons can then be directed by assorted processes developed by the IQH to travel thoughtout the subject's nervous system and heal sickness, or help the subject achieve optimum health.

The founders of the IQH have created a book called "Optimum health through Quantum Healing" with a picture of the founders of IQH wearing Einstein masks and wigs dancing the Macarena on a beach. This is a well known book and it is sold in every major bookstore. Billboards with this image are common throughout the US and internationally, and it is commonly featured on television as well.

Wikipedia uses an image of the book's cover in the article about the book. Some Wikipedia editors also want to use an image of the book's cover in the article about Quantum Healing and possibly in the article about the Institute of Quantum Healing, on the grounds that this helps the reader to identify with the movement, by including a picture of the main book associated with this institute and set of treatments. They seek to apply clause 8 of the NonFree Content Criteria:

Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

to justify wider use of the image of the cover. Other editors dispute this and a huge battle ensues which spreads to dozens of other images of book covers on other articles, and other images. Things begin to escalate as the two camps become dug in. All kinds of charges of violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are lobbed back and forth.

Come with me

A "Professor" Richard Tation (sometimes known to his friends as Dick) has written a best-selling book promoting his idea that sexual orgasms are caused by a discharge of an unseen form of energy that he calls gob, that is also responsible for lightning. Professor Tation's book is full of page after page of diagrams and complicated looking equations. The Professor has statistics to prove that people who live in places with more thunderstorms have better sex lives, and his company runs tours to some of the places with the most lightning activity. These tours are very popular.

Tation also has developed a machine called a gobbulator that has a number of cones on it that are aimed up at nimbus clouds when a thunderstorm is threatening. The gobbulator is supposed to collect the excess gob energy associated with the threatening thunderstorm and then store it in an insulated box. People purchase these insulated boxes and open them in the bedroom when they are planning to have sex so that the room is perfused with this captured gob energy. Tation even sells small attractive insulated containers that women can wear on chains around their necks to attact male interest at parties.

Several studies by mainstream scientific bodies show that the mathematics and statistics in Professor Tation's books are nonsense, and that there is no measurable gob energy with the properties Tation ascribes to it, and nothing detectable in these insulated boxes of gob. Major scientific and medical bodies release statements about this.

Some point out similarities between Tation's work and that of Wilhelm Reich and between gob energy and orgone energy. This is heavily denied by Tation and his followers since Reich's work ran into legal trouble with the Food and Drug Administration and some of the laws are still on the books, so Tation does not want his products to suffer a similar fate.

Peer-reviewed papers critical of gob energy are published in mainstream journals. Still, the public is enthusiastic as a whole of Tation's work and Tation's businesses bring in many hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

A few articles on gob energy and Professor Tation and his businesses are written for Wikipedia. A few new editors that are followers of Tation's theories appear at Wikipedia. Some editors try to use these skeptical and critical mainstream scientific and medical sources in the article, and run into a dispute.

First it is claimed that it is a violation of WP:CIVIL to disagree with the editors that support Professor Tation. This fails, so then it is claimed that only neutral noncritical sources can be used to satisfy WP:NPOV, by which they mean sources which do not criticize the concept of gob energy.

Any discussion of similarities between gob energy and orgone energy are contested by the pro-Tation editors. When told that the articles should include statements that demonstrate this similarity with appropriate cited sources by the policies of Wikipiedia including WP:NPOV, the pro-Tation editors are incensed. One even creates a thread at the Administrator's Noticeboard, starting with:

I'm not interested in opening the debate, just to understand if it has been closed. I have been told that equating gob energy with orgone energy is not a point of view but a principle of the Wikipedia somehow related to the WP:NPOV policy. Was this ever declared as a principle. And if so, where?

Who or what on the Wikipedia has the power to declare such applications of policy as principle?

An angry exchange follows with a lot of wikilawyering.

Then it is claimed that sources critical to the book and negative reviews of the book violate WP:BLP since they reflect poorly on Professor Tation, a living person. Then it is asserted that the "N" in NPOV means that the articles themselves must not judge gob energy, and so the article must be unbiased, containing no negative information or criticism of gob energy. Then it is claimed that it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to include this negative information. Then the complaint is that "If we follow WP:NOR, our article will be exactly as divorced and ridiculous as the reliable sources". Then it is claimed that to include negative sources is forbidden because it is unencyclopedic. Then the claim is made that it is biased to include sources that are critical. Then the claim is made that any negative material in a reference is unusable since it must be just an opinion by definition. Then it is claimed that only third party sources can be used on Wikipedia. When someone lists some major media like the New York Times and the Associated Press and the London Times and the Chicago Tribune which have written negative articles about gob energy, it is argued that "Actually, those really shouldn't be used as sources on this topic because (to my knowledge) they haven't written anything pro-gob energy, and hence really can't be considered third party."

Five or ten of Tation's enthusiastic followers appear at Wikipedia, and more seem to come all the time. A few are blocked for overenthusiasm of one type or another, but it seems two new pro-Tation editors appear for every one that is blocked. The complaint is made that experienced Wikipedia editors are not open to outside information and outside ideas and are extremely biased. Many of these editors, although having almost no edits, seem to be well-acquainted with the acronyms and principles of Wikipedia and wikilawyering, right from their first few edits. This is true in spite of many having red links for their user page and sometimes even their talk pages. Some of these accounts were created a few days ago, some a few weeks ago, and some even months ago.

So how should the articles about Tation and gob energy be written?

The runs

User: Shudder Bugg (SB), also known by his other nickname "Noddes", is a well known contributor of photographs to Wikipedia. The diarrhea article has no illustrations, so SB decides to add some photographs, and submits several photos of soiled underclothing and other assorted messes to Commons.

There is a general uproar by some who view this as unseemly and inappropriate. It is countered that Wikipedia is uncensored. Some claim that Wikipedia will never be taken as a serious academic reference with this kind of content. Others point out that medical texts do include this kind of illustration.

One user, on closely examining the photographs, announces that these pictures were not created with excrement, but with gravy, because of the stain patterns due to the grease content. SB admits that he faked the photographs with gravy instead of fecal material. Some want to remove the photographs and replace them with more realistic photographs, since these faked photographs are a type of deceit. Some argue that more realistic photographs would be even worse than leaving the photographs of the gravy.

SB becomes angry at the criticism and threatens to leave Wikipedia if he is not respected more.

What should be done?

Only good reviews?

A movie comes out that fails miserably at the box office. The reviews are quite negative. However, some SPAs appear and are quite adament that these negative reviews cannot be cited. One writes:

"I think you are not grasping is that the actual film transcript is a reference for describing the film. Relying on film critics is POV."

What should be done?