Talk:Melania (film)

Should this be labeled as a propaganda film?

An overwhelming number of critics are specifically calling this movie propaganda. I was wondering if these could be used since there seems to be a pretty apparent consensus among professional film critics that this film amounts to outright propaganda.

Here are some sources: https://www.theguardian.com/film/commentisfree/2026/jan/31/melania-film-donald-trump-documentary-cinema-sydney-australia

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/story/melania-trump-movie-review#intcid=_vanity-fair-article-bottom-recirc-bkt-a_abf5f718-6447-47db-86cf-de3a9991a33e_closr_fallback_cral-top2-2

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2026-01-31/melania-documentary-amazon-political-propaganda

https://anthonykaufman.substack.com/p/melania-is-not-a-documentary

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/melania-trump-documentary-propaganda-1235508634/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/obsessed/review-melania-doc-is-an-unbelievable-abomination-of-filmmaking/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2026/01/30/melania-movie-roasted-as-propaganda-by-critics-in-first-reviews/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/melania-review-brett-ratner-melania-trump-documentary-1236489604/ ~2025-40616-72 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Done.

The sources and consensus of (reputable) press sources certainly acknowledge this reality objectively and overwhelmingly. More than reasonable. Look at films by Dinesh D'Souza like 2000 mules or even go as far back as Triumph of the Will. This is a propaganda film posing like a documentary, which is no different than any other propaganda film. WP:UNDUE weight is given to any counter-argument that this film is anything other than political propaganda from those well-documented in doing so. EmmaRoydes (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but what is the film's goal? We have articles on propaganda films like Victory Through Air Power (whose aim was to convince the public of the importance and necessity of strategic bombing), Der Fuehrer's Face (whose aim was to convince the American public that the German workforce had been reduced to slave laborers, and that they needed to support the war effort to escape suffering the same fate), and Bolshevism on Trial (whose aim was to convince the public that the Bolsheviks will enslave women and children, and intentionally create famines). What is the tale that this specific propaganda film is trying to sell to the public? Dimadick (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Dimadick The goal of this "informercial" is grifting, an egregious abuse of power but consistent with Trump's M.O.

The message to the public? “Melania” is so studiously celebratory, like a piece of state-sanctioned propaganda out of 1960s Communist China, the film, in its junk-streaming prefab-day-in-the-life reality-show way, mirrors the control of the Trump administration. Its very existence is a pure expression of that control. A white-washing of an unstable authoritarian figure not unlike "Triumph of the Will" did with its toxic subjects. ~2026-77797-1 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

And I challenge you to point out the “grifting” and the “abuse of power”. Nothing you said about the movie is remotely accurate. I’m willing to bet that you haven’t even watched it. ~2026-20752-62 (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

No, this film is no "propaganda" and there are plenty of other reviews from professionals that rebutt that perspective. The article can list this criticism with attribution, but shouldn't adopt it as fact. Bravelake (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not. For one thing, most of those professional critics are liberals and therefore biased against the film. Secondly, the film is just a behind-the-scenes look from Melania Trump’s perspective during the lead-up to the inauguration. No objective person would interpret that as being “propaganda”. ~2026-20752-62 (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOXING This thread no longer is concerned with working out contributions to the article and rather simply fallaciously debating whether journalism as a whole can be trusted, or is inherently politically-biased.

I feel like making a film documenting a political figure doesn't automatically make it propaganda. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not, but don't forget what site you're on. Wikipedia's own founder has acknowledged its bias, and it's basically become a left-wing cerclejerk platform on par with Reddit and Tumblr, exemplified by some of the remarks on other edit requests above. Don't hold your breath. ~2026-89345-3 (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

In what way is this biased? An overwhelming number of critics have referred to this film as propaganda. Just because you believe things that aren't aligned with reality doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with you is a Redditor or left-wing. You're going to need a better argument than that. ~2025-40616-72 (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

What is important to note here is that these are critics, most of which have a political agenda. None of them are experts on propaganda films or give a valid academic analysis as to why this is a propaganda film while similar pieces about the Obamas or Clintons are not. At the end of the day it is a (probably subpar) documentary piece with a certain amount of political agenda, but that doesn’t make it a propaganda movie in the strict sense of the word. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

But this is how a vast majority of reliable sources have characterized the film. ~2026-10151-41 (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable ≠ knowledgeable DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems that you don't understand how Wikipedia works. We follow what reliable sources say. If you think that a specific media outlet has problems, then take it to the WP:RSN. ~2026-10151-41 (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the condescending remark. And you don’t seem to know how academic research works. An unqualified journalist blurring about propaganda doesn’t make him knowledgeable on the subject, no matter if they write in a "reliable" outlet. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

What exactly are your proposing then? To strike use of all stories that call this film propagandistic, just because you disagree with their analysis? ~2026-10151-41 (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@DasallmächtigeJ you have NO actual evidence that the journalists here are operating under a political agenda. Add to that the absurd hypocrisy that Trump IS a politician and the mountains of evidence that he IS operating under a political agenda, especially with regards to this film. This is why no one will nor should take seriously your WP:FRINGE fallacious arguments when you are clearly WP:NOTHERE to acknowledge anything insofar as reality. You are using wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX and these comments will likely be stricken if you continue. Fair warning. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hamiltondamonae maybe you want hold your horses, wipe the foam off your mouth, and try not to read your own political bias into everything you read. I merely pointed out that a "reliable source" does not infer that the person writing for said source has any expert knowledge on the subject, in this case the definition of a propaganda film. I don’t need a lecture on your version of "reality", so spare me.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

|}

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Barbalalaika (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Amazon paid $40 million for Melania, the highest price ever paid for a documentary film?

• Source: Agnew, Megan (January 24, 2026). "Sensitive Trump, Melania the boss… inside the first lady's second term". The Times. Archived from the original on January 27, 2026.

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mining in Greenland
  • Comment: The prose size of the article by this edit on January 26 was 1216 bytes and the article is now 9844 bytes.

5x expanded by Jon698 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 114 past nominations.

Jon698 (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC).

• This is not a documentary film. I'm having trouble finding a suitable term for it. NSX-Racer (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This is for discussion of the DYK nomination. If you wish to discuss the term for the film then take that to the article's talk page. Propaganda documentaries are still documentaries. Jon698 (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The article has been sufficiently expanded in the last 7 days. It is long enough and comprehensive. While Trump supporters would certainly call it biased, the article seems to correctly reflect the coverage of the topic in what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. I do not see any close paraphrasing. I do think that we can come up with more interesting hooks. The last two sentences in Melania (film)#Production could make good hooks, and the bits about only one ticket or no tickets selling would be even better. Surtsicna (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Jon698: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Will do so after getting back from the theater. Jon698 (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

How do these hooks sound @Surtsicna:

1. ALT1: ... that two-thirds of the New York production staff for Melania requested to be omitted from the credits?
2. ALT2: ... that Jonny Greenwood requested that his music be removed from Melania?

Approving ALT0 and ALT1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

RFC: Should mention of Brett Ratner's rape and sexual assault allegations be mentioned in the WP:LEAD? (survey)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No, this information should not be in the lead. The survey indicates consensus that this information is not relevant to the film, and even the RfC's nominator casts a 'neutral' position. (non-admin closure) Athanelar (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

---

The following will be a survey only and we only need you to state something along the line of Support Option (Letter). No long wall of text is necessary, though comments, sources and discussions of process is encouraged.

Brett Ratner fled Hollywood for Israel and lost work following several documented allegations of rape, sexually misconduct and harassment by several woman, and mention in the Epstein files.

There is a debate on whether mention of this should be included in the WP:LEAD, which according to Wikipedia the WP:LEAD..."should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

I will just note that the following text is what is currently in dispute:

Melania is Ratner's first film since sexual assault allegations were made against him in 2017.

However, as the RfC states, please suggest how we should word this should you offer support. ~2026-10151-41 (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Per request of other editors, the RFC now has proper templates and formatting

@Hamiltondamonae Ongoing discussion at Talk:Melania_(film)#WP:LEAD. Now, if you want to start a WP:RFC, you need to read the manual. The point of an RFC is that by being formatted and listed correctly, other people will notice and contribute. Saying "This is an RFC" isn't enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not making a comment on the debate itself, but people have been reverting you @Hamiltondamonae because this is not an RfC. Please consult WP:RFCOPEN so you can do it properly, it's clearly laid out and won't take long. This is just a talk page thread right now. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias My bad. I have refreshed my browser, and though I am a quick study, I confess that I'm green around the ears. I think this now has the proper templates AND follows precedence. Also, fair warning, English isn't my first language. I hope I have understood and addressed your concerns. I will collapse this so we don't confuse the readers, sound good mate? Hamiltondamonae (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

RFC is still open, and this is WP:OFFTOPIC and erroneous, as the conflict here is now moot

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hamiltondamonae reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Page protected) it was determined that Hamiltondamonae is a likely suckpuppet, and this article has been protected so that they can no longer edit it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon This is a lie. In fact the patrolling admin of the actual flimsy SPI thinks otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hamiltondamonae&diff=prev&oldid=1339641632

But maybe we should go to an WP:ANI regarding your behavior considering that you are spreading misinformation in hopes to push your POV without allowing the RFC to conclude AND without a proper consensus.

It’s not your place to remove longstanding edit until this process concludes and you are clearly doing so without the proper approval of a closing admin. The noticeboard row simply concluded greater not lesser protection was called for, though you misrepresented that info as well.

I will give you an opportunity to self-revert before reporting you for resuming the editwar of the now indeffed editor. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I do not wish to interact with you in any way. Feel free to report me at WP:ANI if you think you have a case. Also, please stop pinging me and please stay off of my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

• I removed the disputed text from the WP:LEAD yesterday , and I'll copypaste a comment I made in the ongoing Talk:Melania_(film)#WP:LEAD thread here:

• Lead content: "Melania is Ratner's first film since sexual assault allegations were made against him in 2017."
• Body content: "Melania is Ratner's first film since numerous women accused him of sexual misconduct in 2017."

That is not a summary. Yes, WP should cover this, particularly in the Ratner article, and sources on the film have made the connection, so it's fine to mention in this article too. As this article is written, it still fails the WP:LEAD in this article. It's not "summary of its most important contents", just repetition. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• When I read a Wikipedia article about a film titled Melania, I expect the lead to be about the film, a bit about the subject of the film, and maybe the name of the director and the studio. I don't expect the lead to mention that Melania Trump was a fashion model until 1996. That has nothing to do with this film and is easily found by clicking on the Melania Trump wikilink. I don't expect the lead to mention that in 2017 MGM aqquired the TV rights to Lord Of The Rings. That has nothing to do with this film and is easily found by clicking on the Amazon MGM Studios wikilink. And I don't expect the lead to mention that in 2017 the director was accused of sexual assault. That has nothing to do with this film and is easily found by clicking on the Brett Ratner wikilink.

WP:LEAD is crystal clear. The lead is a summary of its most important contents about this page and this film. Not a random collection of facts about the past of people who were involved in making it. In addition, there may be a BLP aspect. Per WP:BLPCRIME, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, is suspected of, is a person of interest in, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. Ratner is a somewhat public figure, so it is OK to mention accusations in his case, but that mention really needs context such as who made the accusation and whether or not there was an arrest or a conviction. Context that we have room for in the body. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Remove from lead The RFC question here is a bit of a mess, but this bit of trivia isn't necessary in the lead of an article about a film. Nemov (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Clearly remove. There is zero valid rationale to keep this statement in the lead, it's simply not important enough in this context. It's mentioned plenty on Ratner's page and in the actually body of the article, which is where it should be. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) Remove. This is about the personal life of the film's director so it has little relevance to the making of this work. WP:LEAD also states Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, this being Ratner's first film since sexual misconduct allegations is mentioned in the filming section so does not need to be included per that part of the guideline. If readers want to know about this information, the article for Ratner himself should have enough information. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Neutral Even though I started the RFC, I am actually indifferent about it.

My larger concern was that certain disruptive entities were doing their darnedest to allow even so much of a debate about this. So it's good to see how the larger community feels, even in these few remarks.

On the pro-side- Again, the reason it likely belongs here is because Ratner was essentially exiled for raping and attacking several women (i.ethe facts of which, and veracity of the witnesses of which ARE NOT in dispute) so for Trump to literally bail him out of this so he could return to making movies again is no small matter. And the sources certainly reflect that. Ratner's pariah status is literally noted in ALL press about this without question. It would be like as if Biden gave Harvey Weinstein a chance to produce movies with his Presidency as cover. And again, according to Wikipedia the WP:LEAD..."should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." You can't get any clearer than that. So it certainly belongs in the lead as that is very controversial as reflected by the consensus of sources in the press.

On the oppose side- However, the article itself doesn't lose anything really without it too. It's a mild WP:CENSORSHIP violation and like so many wikipedia film articles, where WP:WEASEL word violations act as PR for populist movies that bombed, saying silly stuff like "BUT IT WAS A HIT WITH AUDIENCES!" to playfully parody, and other such WP:SYNTHy examples exist, it's part of a larger problem of how wikipedia deals with the mob rule aspect of cliques essentially WP:OWNing these pages at the expense of the reader who doesn't bother to go to the talk page to see how much of a mess these articles can be. In any case, the article won't suffer overall for the absence of it, and down the road this should likely be hashed out on one of those MOS:FILM messageboards for better guidance since how we deal with the Kevin Spaceys, Brett Ratners, Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanskis and others of their lot is certainly WP:NOTABLE when extraordinary circumstances bail them out of essentially being cancelled by their industry for sexually violent behavior. My 2 cents. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Well then this was just a complete waste of time. If you can't even support your own RfC then why are we here? Pretty clear nobody else supports it from the above so it should be closed. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias Not so fast... please do NOT put words in my mouth and WP:AGF.

What I did say, was, "My larger concern was that certain disruptive entities were doing their darnedest to allow even so much of a debate about this. So it's good to see how the larger community feels, even in these few remarks."

It is the debate here that is important to me.

Why?

Because the original contributionb made by others AND supported by a prevailing consensus was arbitrarily removed by disruptive editors that IMO are WP:NOTHERE to promote a debate about whether to mention Ratner's controversies in the lead. That long-standing edit was unilaterally removed based upon misinformation and false allegations against me, that I was "found to be a sock" even though there was never such a finding, saying that the edit could be reverted on that basis alone.

The truth is that there were some unresolved RFCs about Ratner's controversies in the lead AND other matters. One person suggested we split the original unresolved RFCs into separate matters. Hence THIS Rfc.

As for closing it, I would suggest leaving it open for a bit since the article was unnecessarily restricted because it is IMO being treated with the same overprotective nature of say a living bio, and so with editing now slowed to a crawl it is hard to see how others may feel about this.

Again, this is NOT about getting MY way or YOUR way. It should ALWAYS be about an open and honest (and fair) debate about on these matters.

the tl;dr version is-- it is the DEBATE that matters, and we should respect the admin who comes in makes a call on it based upon the merits of the debate as weighed against the rules of what should count in the voice of wikipedia. So, we shouldn't shrug our shoulders at long-standing contributions on this article being lost or removed based on the whims of unilateral editing or drama by a few people. If this bothers you, then I'd suggest taking this to a conflict resolution board on MOS:FILM or a similar board. Take care. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias P.S. When you say, "Nobody supports this..." gimme a break. The original edit was supported by a prevailing consensus of editors for some time without major controversy. Then literally one or two people made an issue out of it, exploited drama that wasn't there's to exploit, and now we have maybe the opinion of a handful of people on this issue. That is far from "Nobody...". Some RFCs can weeks to resolve and if you really feel this way, then maybe involve an admin to get their appraisal on this. But let's be honest here, and not make snap judgements over an RFC that hasn't been open for all that long. Cheers. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment As we are supposed to be reflecting the consensus of the press in the voice of wikipedia, note how this article literally includes in its lead the following byline at the tippy top of it, "Filmmaker Brett Ratner, exiled from Hollywood after sexual misconduct allegations in 2017, has staged a comeback directing a $40-million Melania Trump documentary for Amazon." So, if the press itself isn't treating this as some sort of big bad libel or fauxpas against Ratner, it feels rather contrived to the extent that a handful of editors are giving this issue so much WP:UNDUE weight against including this WP:NOTABLE information up front and center. It really is only serving a minority view here coming at this from a WP:FRINGE point of view that the press was somehow out to get Ratner. Something to consider here when deciding on how we should come at it since we are speaking in the voice of wikipedia and that is based upon the consensus of the legitimate press IT recognizes (and not what we think about the press) even if that means siding with press some here personally feel are biased against MAGA (i.e.there's no proof of a left-wing conspiracy or bias in the press against Trump and his authoritarian political movement). Food for thought in this debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltondamonae (talk • contribs) 22:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  That particular article does, yes. However, it is also an article about Ratner, mentioning the film, not an article about the film mentioning Ratner. So on that particular factoid, and Rush Hour 4, that article mirrors Wikipedia's article about Ratner. And read WP:N again, it has nothing to do with this issue. Nor does FRINGE, something not being in the LEAD does not make it FRINGE. The LEAD doesn't mention "Melania earned $28 million from Melania.", that doesn't make it FRINGE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  I also dislike the fact that there seems to be an effort to make literally everybody else "fringe", with insinuations that we are all big Melania fans or that we are not satisfied with sources because they "are biased against MAGA". aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Comment Again, it is more than WP:NOTABLE to report that Ratner lost his career in the entertainment industry because of several well-documented (read: not frivolous) rape allegations by several women, only for this movie orchestrated by the Trump Presidency to essentially manipulate the system so he could make movies again against the consent of his own industry-- who was concerned with the safety of his victims and future victims. That right there is the consensus in the press as far as Ratner is concerned and why the press leads with it.

  For our purposes, the way it was originally worded in the lead was (generously) diplomatic and neutral in it's phrasing, and at least offered that important information (i.e. as Ratner's sudden return to filmmaking under these politically-motivated circumstances was very much a part of the history of the making of Melania's movie). So either we reflect the consensus in the press that clearly said as much (and echo their analysis here, as wikipedia requires) or we WP:CENSOR it because we don't WP:LIKE it. It's really not any more complicated than that. But given the current political climate I personally don't think it will impair this article too much without mention of that. At least we are debating it here, and the merits of including it (or not including it) so at least that's something. Cheers. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

An ANI concerning this ancillary drama has closed with all concerns addressed and the outcome being a general warning to all parties involved to essentially disengage from personal drama and cool off. I personally hope that this derailed thread will discourage future drama, as the aforementioned drama is now moot, and should’ve been made on a complaint-messageboard in the first place, not here, as we have been advised to report future drama to the proper channels should it become heated again.

• WP:N doesn't apply here at all. "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles" if you missed it, it's near the top. If you are using AI to WP-argue for you, the advice is don't. AI sucks at that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Gråbergs Gråa Sång I most certainly do NOT use AI to argue for me...lol..So let's do without the obvious WP:NPA passive-aggressive personal attacks?

  Again, according to Wikipedia the WP:LEAD..."should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." It is VERY controversial that a director exiled from his industry for well-documented serial-rape was suddenly bailed out by the American Presidency that commissioned him to make this movie AND an upcoming sequel to a Jackie Chan movie. That isn't my opinion, that is simply echoing the consensus in the press that leads with that disclaimer-of-sorts about Ratner.

  Also, not sure why you think "notability" isn't a guideline here when WP:LEAD literally mentions the importance of it several times, saying, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences."

  A better debate should be "how notable" it is, for that reason, whether or not it should be included. Cheers. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Read it again. It says "why the topic is notable." The topic is the film, Melania, Not Ratner. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  I never said that. Not sure why you're claiming I did... to be honest though looking at the person who made that comment, I think they were being generous. You clearly lack an understanding of Wikipedia policies that you are invoking – this is likely because 1) they were given to you by AI, 2) you are being malicious, or 3) you lack the competency required to edit on Wikipedia. I think option 1 is the more charitable guess from the above editor. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Aesurias Aye, I fixed it. I'm struggling with the visual editor on my end, so I did not intend to direct those comments at you. Thank you for the heads up.

  But, no, I never used AI here or elsewhere for my own original thinking. And since you are decidedly being hostile yourself, condoning that personal attack against me, this conversation no longer serves a purpose. FYI, I offered my reasoning and cited policy where I needed, and I fully understand that you do not WP:LIKE my interpretation of WP:LEAD, so noted. So lets agree to disagree. Have a good one. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  It's not that I don't "like" it. It's that it isn't correct. You do understand that, right? That Ratner is not the topic of this article? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@User:Hamiltondamonae You have been told again and again that WP:NOTABLE says "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." and "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list", NOT WHETHER SOMETHING BELONGS IN THE LEAD.

As has been explained to you multiple times, the correct guideline for that is WP:LEAD. Your decision to repeatedly misrepresent Wikipedia's policies is disruptive. Given the following...

• You appear to be unable or unwilling to stop adding the phrase "WP:NOTABLE" to discussions about what should be in the lead.
• You were also unable or unwilling to format an RfC properly or accept help doing so, choosing instead to attack other editors who told you that it what you kept posting wasn't an actual RfC
• You showed yourself to be unable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's rules about edit warring, stopping only after page protection made it impossible for you to continue.
• You can't seem to wrap your head around the concept that removing something from the lead and retaining it in the body is not censoring it.
• Both I and Gråbergs Gråa Sång suspect that the reason you seem to be unable to understand or even respond to what people keep telling you is that some of your arguments are AI generated and it is the AI that does not understand.

...It is my considered opinion that you be topic banned from this page on the grounds of WP:CIR. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I am also expressing my support for a topic ban. If they are unable to understand that Brett Ratner is not the topic of the article titled "Melania (film)" (aka not Brett Ratner) they do not meet Wikipedia:CIR. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Comment There is not an admin "telling me" again and again on what opinions I am allowed to have on this matter, despite you both attempting to invoke the authority of one. No, you are (at best) just a couple of disgruntled editors who do not WP:LIKE my opinions on this matter.

For the record, as you are taking me out of context here: I never said this article should be about Ratner. Rather, WHAT I DID SAY, is that, (to quote me) according to Wikipedia the WP:LEAD..."should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." It is VERY controversial that a director exiled from his industry for well-documented serial-rape was suddenly bailed out by the American Presidency, one that commissioned him to make this movie AND an upcoming sequel to a Jackie Chan movie as a way out of job termination of sorts by Hollywood. That isn't my opinion, that is simply echoing the consensus in the press that leads with that disclaimer-of-sorts about Ratner.(end quote)

The point of an RFC is voice our support and opposition for inclusion of this information, or any contentious information, and perhaps even have a WP:CIVIL debate about the merits. The purpose of an RFC is NOT for any one editor to exploit it, or use it to coerce others, into taking your position. That is what you are doing by threatening to have me "topic banned" because I refuse to accept your interpretation of WP:LEAD.

Here's my protip: When an admin finally closes this RFC, and should it be called in favor of your position, then I would hope that would suffice is making you feel personally vindicated. As for me, I haven't pushed for changes on the article itself, as my vote here was to remain neutral, however I have offered arguments for and against inclusion of the information so at least this debate could be fairly represented on both sides. I am content that this is has been accomplished, and I have nothing more to offer on this RFC. Happy editing. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is "threatening" you or "attempting to invoke the authority of [an administrator]". We are simply stating our opinions. If you can't understand what "topic" means, you are unfit to edit. The problem is, I think you do know what it means. You certainly seem competent. So why are you continuing to make a clearly illogical argument? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias You state in one breath, "we are simply stating our opinions" and then in another breath you are clearly WP:CANVASSING others to have me topic banned for expressing my opinion in an RFC simply because you decided that I am making "a clearly illogical argument." That is the WP:POINT you are making, intentional or otherwise, at the expense of the RFC. I've already voted and I stand by my reasoning. I don't have to justify my arguments in support of my decision to you, even if you do not WP:LIKE them for your own personal reasons. I have already stated above that I am done, so I'm not even sure what exactly you want from me?? If this is about having the last word then go for it, and lets move on.Hamiltondamonae (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Once again, you appear to be completely unaware of the topics you are linking. Both WP:CANVASS and WP:POINT are so inapplicable to this conversation that it's honestly alarming you have brought them up... aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Just take them to WP:ANI over the WP:CIR issue. In my opinion, the result will be a slam dunk topic ban if they behave themselves at ANI, and a full ban if they behave there the way they have behaved here.

No point talking to someone who can't or won't understand basic concepts like "the topic is the film".

Again, I can't prove this, but I have seen this pattern in people who use an AI to post in a language they don't understand. The AIs don't actually understand anything. They just use statistical tricks to predict what the next word should be. See Hallucination (artificial intelligence). --Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Audience reviews

I am having trouble reconciling this now-reverted edit: with this reference and with MOS:FILMAUDIENCE

The first question is "are audience reviews actually positive?" The second is "How should this article present audience reviews? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

See articles like Star Wars: The Last Jedi. We don't include mentions of audience score in the lede. Jon698 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! The reverted edit in question was indeed in the lead. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Simple answer is we don't include audience scores, per the last line of MOS:FILMAUDIENCE. If a reliable source critically discussed or analysed audience scoring, we could quote that source itself, but I'd be sceptical of using a WP:FORBESCONTRIBUTOR. nil ^nz 01:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It appears that the Forbes source is already being used in the second sentence of the Audience reception section. Take out that claim and the Forbes citation supporting it? We would still have the Verge and the BBC talking about the reverse review bombing. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I'd remove the claim and the Forbes source. This Rolling Stone article could be a good replacement if we reword the IMDB claim to match? (I'm on mobile atm but can edit myself later) nil ^nz 03:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done nil ^nz 05:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bravelake Please read this discussion and WP:BRD before attempting to re-add any content against consensus. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I have read it, and you'd be good to abide it.

Again, you do not represent consensus. Bravelake (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Did you read it, though? Because what you've just said doesn't really make sense. You made a bold addition, it was reverted (by various editors), you now need to discuss. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

This is really flawed analysis of MOS:FILMAUDIENCE. No where does it say to not include discussion of audience scoring in the lead.

Leads are meant to summarize the content of the article. The reception section of this article, and its audience reception subsection, discusses the wide disparity between the critic and audience reviews, as reported in places like The Guardian which "asserted that the disparity in ratings between professional critics and the public may be "the biggest gap between critical and popular scores" for any film in history"

MOS:FILMLEAD states, "[o]ther paragraphs in the lead should cover aspects not yet mentioned. Examples include major events involving the production, prominent themes, reception, box office grosses and milestones, controversies . . .and any significant cultural impact." This disparity seems to touch on reception, controversy, and a significant cultural impact.

The body of the article provides balance on the reception by including information on this disparity. There is no (valid) reason the lead should not summarize that balanced discussion, too. Last, how other articles handled it is not a dispositive or substantive argument. Bravelake (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Plenty of films have had large differences between the critic and audience scores. We do not note that in the lede. Jon698 (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Reagan (2024 film) is a prime example. The lede notes its overwhelmingly negative reception from critics, while the body mentions the disparity compared to the audience review. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, that is not really a substantive argument against inclusion. Tradition isn't a justification of a practice. Bravelake (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I wonder what these two films have in common and why certain editors wouldn't want the fact that audiences enjoyed it placed in the lead... interesting! Bravelake (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Careful of what you're trying to imply here, you're bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS. nil ^nz 07:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not "trying" to do anything. Bravelake (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Those other films aren't this film. That is not a reason to not include it here, particularly when that fact has been given coverage in reliable sources. Bravelake (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

You do not understand consensus. The sum total of other articles is how we write articles. Jon698 (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I do understand consensus. There are various levels of consensus, including local consensus.

How one article handles thing isn't a universal rule that must be followed in every similar article across the project. That would be a very stupid and unproductive way to operate. Bravelake (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

That is nonsense. There is uniformity across articles for a reason. We do that for easy reason and consistent writing standards. You have not offered any reasons to violate this. Jon698 (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It isn't true that every article on films are laid out in the same manner or have identically formatted leads. They do vary to allow for adaptation to how those films are covered in RS. There is no site policy or guideline requiring your position, either.

Your first position was that it violated the film MOS. I provided an argument as to why that isn't true. Then you turned to "well this is how other film articles do it."

This film isn't those other films. Its coverage isn't the coverage given to other films. Variances are justified when a film receives coverage unique to it, as this one did in The Guardian article I discussed. Bravelake (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

So you understand local consensus, and therefore understand that you hold the minority viewpoint here and should not re-add the sentence until you have local consensus from this talk page?

Debating back and forth on this as we are now is unproductive because there is no attempt to establish local consensus.

I would recommend opening up a separate thread about it so you can receive clear responses and a consensus can be determined clearly. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I do not need a lecture from you, or anyone, about consensus.

I will always push back against illogical and unfounded arguments that manipulate policy and best practices. That is always productive.

This thread is sufficient. If you'd like to start another thread, you're more than welcome to. Bravelake (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a local consensus. It it a sitewide consensus described in a Wikipedia guideline: MOS:FILMAUDIENCE. I wrote an essay just for people in your situation. You can find it at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

No, MOS:FILMAUDIENCE does not discuss placing reporting on the variance between critic and audience scores in the lead, nor does it counsel against it. On the contrary, MOS:FILMLEAD counsels in favor of discussing "reception" in the lead. Bravelake (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Please stop saying things that are not true. Did you imagine that nobody would check? You did not "report on the variance between critic and audience scores". you added the words "it received mostly positive reviews from viewers" to the lead, and then started edit warring.

The lead already covers the film's reception. It says "It received overwhelmingly negative reviews from critics, who criticized its self-promotional or propagandistic nature" --Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

You're taking my edit out of context, deliberately so given the word you left out.

I added a clause so the full sentence read, "It received overwhelmingly negative reviews from critics, who criticized its self-promotional or propagandistic nature, while it received mostly positive reviews from viewers. This sentence does describe the variance between critical and audience reviews.

The lead covers one aspect of the reception. Another major aspect of this film's reception, unique to it according to The Guardian, opinion writers at USAToday, and The Rolling Stone Australia, is the historic disparity. Leads should describe and summarize the body and major topics of the subject. This disparity is one such topic. Bravelake (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

But all you added was a line about positive audience reception, without mentioning the disparity. Better wording would have been something like It received overwhelmingly negative reviews from critics, who criticized its self-promotional or propagandistic nature; the film attained the largest disparity between audience and critic scores in Rotten Tomatoes history. The audience score alone isn't notable, and on other platforms it did not receive mostly positive audience ratings, as your addition suggests. nil ^nz 07:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The contrast between the "overwhelmingly negative reviews from critics" and "mostly positive reviews from viewers" is baked into the structure of the sentence.

MOS:FILMAUDIENCE recommends relying on reliable sources for audience scores, like CinemaScore and PostTrack. Both outfits demonstrate a high audience score with CinemaScore audiences giving it an A and PostTrack audiences giving it a 5/5. Bravelake (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The contrast [...] is baked into the structure of the sentence.

Sure, but all it's told us is that there is a disparity; that alone is not notable, unusual, or worthy of inclusion. Your argument for inclusion above is the film's unique [...] historic disparity, but your edit doesn't summarise those aspects at all. nil ^nz 08:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The historic disparity, as reported in reliable sourcing, is notable and has been deemed worthy of inclusion in the body. I believe my edit summarizing the fact that a disparity exists is a sufficient summary of the information included in the body and is worthy of inclusion following MOS:FILMLEAD.

Your suggested version would be another good way of adding the information, too. Bravelake (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay – I will 'cast my vote' now that you seem to have summarised your argument for inclusion. I oppose inclusion, for reasons expressed above by myself and every other editor here. 👍🏼 aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Does that amount to anything more than appeals to tradition? Bravelake (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Add my !vote against inclusion. And no, I don't think you should challenge or question my !vote. Like Aesurias, I explained my reasons in the discussion above. Let's see if anyone agrees with your reasoning. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't need to question it anymore. You have no substantive argument other than appeals to tradition and shallow popularity. Bravelake (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bravelake What's not substantive about it?

They offered precedence (read: not tradition, nor popularity) as to the etiquette for these things. They also offered guidelines.

The problem with your contribution here is that it introduces a WP:FALSEBALANCE and risks a WP:SYNTHESIS of the obvious very negative (and near universal) reception by the press and the critics. It reads like we are trying to water down the reasonable negative reaction the movie received by trying to basically say, "BUT AUDIENCES LOVED IT!"

Also it is NOT true that audiences LOVED it. There's no verifiable evidence for that other than probable rigging of those easily abused metrics. The truth is that American audiences were at best indifferent about the movie or as a whole skeptical, and of course it was a hit for the MAGA cult. But that's not relevant here as far as general audiences are concerned. Add to that that this will lose money. This isn't a major hit like "Fahrenheit 9/11" which made over $200 million dollars.

So, again, we do not have to "balance" anything here. We simply reflect the reality as interpreted and analyzed by the consensus in the press, which is to say that other than a partisan leaning toward the film, we really can't say what audiences thought of this movie given the nature of this political reality distortion field in play. Take care. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The guidelines he mentioned do not support his position or oppose inclusion. Appeals to tradition are not substantive. Saying "its just how we do things" is not how Wikipedia evolves or how local consensus operates. Nor is his petty claim of "lets see if anyone agrees" a substantive argument. I understand how consensus works, but as policies and guidelines admit, and how logic dictates, being in the majority doesn't mean being right, particularly when its composed of like 4 editors.

No, it does not introduce false balance. False balance is elevating minority views among a group to generate an impression that it is more popular than it is within that group. An example of false balance in this instance would be to state that critical reviews were mixed between positive and negative (to be sure, there are numerous positive critical reviews, but these are substantially outweighed by negative critical reviews.) As the film MOS outlines, we consider critical and audience reviews separately. They are different metrics and considering the differences between those, as my edit, does is not a false balance.

On the contrary, keeping this out of the lead is an effort to promote a false balance by keeping substantive and reliable information out of the lead and buried in the bottom of the article. You admit it yourself: you do not want to change the impression that the film was massively hated by critics. Although, including that audiences enjoyed it, and that this disparity is historic, does not "water down" the fact that critics largely disliked it. What an odd claim. In the same vein, it is not synthesis. I am not taking two sources that say A and B to say C.

We can bicker about whether the critical reviews are "reasonable", but that is not the job of Wikipedia. Whether the reviews are reasonable is immaterial to reporting on critical reviews published in reliable sources.

You clearly haven't read MOS:FILMAUDIENCE. It counsels that audience reviews should be gathered from reliable sources that are protected from review bombs, like CinemaScore and PostTrack. Both sources demonstrate a high audience score for this film, with CinemaScore audiences giving it an A and PostTrack audiences giving it a 5/5 and 89% recommending it to others. So, my proposed edit is supported by sources deemed reliable by the relevant MOS. Your objection is not, however.

I'm going to ignore your irrelevant, nonsensical ramblings about a "maga cult". Also, whether the film lost money is immaterial to this debate. The fact remains this was the best turnout for a non-musical documentary in a decade, as the article describes.

Yes, we always must ensure our articles are balanced. This is a core Wikipedia policy that you can read up on here. There is zero policy or guideline to support your position that articles should and can ONLY care about the press' views on a film in the lead, or that audience reviews (or the disparity between the two) are to be wholly excluded from the lead. Your position is also betrayed by the fact that they're both included in the article at all.

Your comment, particularly about "maga cults", also betrays your true motivation here. You have a very clear reason for wanting to keep it out of the lead. You want to carry on the impression that no one liked the film. Its sad that you're letting your personal feelings cloud your editorial judgment.

Hope this helps! Bravelake (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bravelake You are basically making an argument for your original research and analysis in the matter, so refresh yourself about WP:OR. How the press reacted the movie, and subsequently the consensus of critics, is an entirely different subject than how audiences embraced this. So, no, we don't have to use how (you think) audiences embraced this to WP:SYNTHESIZE the simple fact that critics unanimously did not like it this movie. We are here to report and reflect that reality, not WP:EDITORIALIZE this information as you are basically suggesting.

And, yes, what controls us here is what legitimate sources we can produce to echo our contributions. Wikipedia doesn't recognize NewsMax, Breitbart or Trump himself as legitimate sources for news. That aside, the press itself (as in sources recognized by wikipedia as the standard we can use to make our claims) doesn't seem to think how audiences embraced this film was all that WP:NOTABLE outside the possibility that maybe political forces tried to 'create an impression' that this movie was LOVED by audiences, when it was clearly not.

At this point, you are obviously trying to get wikipedia to push propapanda about this movie, rather than helping us fairly report about it.

You can misrepresent our views here all you want HOWEVER no one here is trying to maintain 'an impression' about this movie. The facts are, and reality happens to be, that critics universally did NOT like this. So who cares what the audience thinks as far they are concerned? If you can provide legitimate sources that this was a smash hit with audiences, then start with that, and then make a case for why this is WP:notable based upon something in the way of empiricism. Otherwise this is basically just a form of WP:OR. Cheers. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

This isn't original research. My edit in the lead merely reflects the cited information from the reception section in the article. This is pretty basis stuff you're getting wrong.

You're right that critical and audience reviews are different. So, you were wrong when you initially said that including audience reviews in the lead would somehow "water down" the critical review consensus. They are separate considerations.

It simply isn't true that I'm making up the audience reviews. My comment, and the information about audience reviews in the body, rely on the very sources the MOS tells us to rely on. You keep ignoring that. That is not editorializing or synthesizing. That is simply summarizing coverage in reliable sources that is notable to the film.

I am not arguing to remove information on the critical reviews. But it simply isn't true that critical reviews are the sole and only consideration that matter. You keep asserting that as fact, but cannot support that with any policy or guidelines.

Again, my edits are supported by the reliable sources that MOS:FILMAUDIENCE tells us to use. You're randomly ranting about Brietbart is completely irrelevant. I have also provided many reliable sources to show that the disparity between the critical and audience reviews is itself a notable aspect of the film. I have already done that.

No, I am not "pushing propoganda". That would you be you. I am trying to get the lead to accurately summarize information in the body. You are fighting against that.

You may not care what audiences thought. What you care about couldn't matter less to what information should be included in the lead. Bravelake (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bravelake Then here's an idea... start with quotes and actual (legit) sources that echo your points rather than simply trying to say that we should include this OR that because of aggregators. In fact, when you read MOS:FILM we are encouraged NOT to over-rely on aggregators, and we are instructed to find specific direct sources, as aggregators themselves are unreliable.

So, perhaps, make a list of sources, with quotes and analysis by the press that say what you are saying, and in the meantime respect the prevailing consensus at the moment that is against your contribution here. Consider starting an RFC as well if you want to properly gauge how the community feels. Or, at most, take this to a noticeboard if you honestly feel like this article is being maligned as badly as you thing.

That's all I want to say about this, I'm done. protip: Try to work within this process and consider those easy ways to distill and appraise what are you pitching here. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

God bless, have you read the body of the article? In which the article relies on the exact two sources for audience reviews that MOS:FILMAUDIENCE says to use? They aren't aggregators. You're just making things up at this point.

I have done that, and you can find that in my prior posts above.

I will continue to challenge your and other's poor argumentation here and elsewhere. You're free to hold your opinion, and I'm free to hold mine.

I'd encourage you to not make ideologically-loaded arguments, as you did in your initial contribution here.

You are not a "pro" and have no substantive tips. You've endlessly failed to accurately apply polices and demonstrate an inability to critically engage with this article or counter-arguments to your position. Bravelake (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bravelake You are not the gatekeeper here, and you are in no place to decide on behalf of wikipedia if our arguments are "poor" or not. Yes, I heard you loud and clear that you plan to WP:BLUDGEON us an alternative to working this through a proper process. So, if that is the case, and you don't plan to create an RFC on this, or take your concern to a noticeboard, then this simply becomes either an editwar at worse on the main page OR your WP:SOAPBOX here moving forward.

P.S. btw, When I said "I was done", that was my way of saying 'let's move on' as there's nothing left to say between the both of us, I was only responding out of courtesy AND because you are taking me out of context here. But if this is only about having the last word here, then go for it. I will not respond moving forward. Take care. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

You are not a gatekeeper, nor in any place to decide on behalf of Wikipedia if someone else's argument is poor or not. We are both individuals who are capable of holding opinions on the merit of others' arguments, however. You are free to disagree with me. I am free to find your arguments lacking substance and merit. I am free to express that on this thread.

This is not an edit war, as neither of us are editing an article and reverting/counter-editing the other. You can learn what an edit war is here.

This is not a soapbox, but a conversation/debate between editors about how information should be included in an article, also known as a content dispute. This is the appropriate location for such a discussion.

I did not "take you out of context". You, on the other hand, have continued to display an inability to faithfully interact with this site's PnGs and arguments against your perspective. Bravelake (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion in the lede as there are no valid arguments to buck sitewide consensus. Jon698 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no sitewide consensus. It is not established anywhere that this is the consensus-based formation of the lead. Bravelake (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

There is indeed a sitewide consensus on this matter. We have explained this to you multiple times above. Jon698 (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Please show me where this has been discussed and established as sitewide consensus. You have not explained this, just merely asserted it as true. Bravelake (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698 I concur, but maybe we should do a proper RFC on the matter? Not sure that I am up for it given stuff I have going on. Even with that, I don't see this going anywhere anyhow. No one seems to be supporting it, as the other editor is basically just WP:SOAPBOXING at this point. My 2 cents. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose as the reasons offered would result in a WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:SYNTHESIS with the obvious agenda to water-down or downplay the universal condemnation by critics of the Melania Trump promotional movie (which is how they see it), and also because we have no idea if audiences LOVED IT because there is no clear sourcing or evidence for this because of possible review-bombing and suspected shenanigans as reported by the press. Best to leave it out.Hamiltondamonae (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

MOS:FILMAUDIENCE recommends using two sources that use a methodology that protects reviews from review-bombing. Both of those sources demonstrate a high audience rating for this film. This is discussed in the body of the article, and is easily verifiable. It simply isn't true that "we have no idea".

How does stating there is a disparity between critical and audience reviews of the film (a fact reported in reliable sources that I've linked in above discussions) water-down or downplay the fact that critics largely dislike the film? Bravelake (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bravelake I responded above, which should cover this, and, no, those sources are not demonstrating what you think they are saying. The positive audience score was likely rigged by MAGA forces, and that is according to the press on the matter. So, unfortunately, that is about as much as we should say about it. Nuff said. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

You are showing a complete ignorance of how the sources recommended by MOS:FILMAUDIENCE work, and continue to expose yourself as an ideologically-motivated actor. Bravelake (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bravelake, WP:NPA. One more personal attack like the above and we will be discussing your behavior at WP:ANI. You should take a lesson from Hamiltondamonae. I disagree with them and they disagree with me -- sometimes forcefully -- but we manage to do so with no real incivility or personal attacks. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

My comments regarding him are based on his plain language and arguments posted here. He has engaged in similar types of critiques of me, too. That's okay.

I have nothing to learn from him, nor is he a model for editor behavior. Bravelake (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)