Misplaced Pages

Talk:Film censorship in China: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:41, 13 June 2017 editTenTonParasol (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers18,247 edits →Changes: a small suggestion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:50, 1 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,277 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(353 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Film|class=start|Chinese=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Film |Chinese=yes}}
{{WikiProject China |importance=low|cinema=yes}}
}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
== Reasoning column ==
| algo = old(180d)
| archive = Talk:Film censorship in China/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 5
}}{{archives|auto=yes}}


== Preparation of Rewriting ==
It's probably best that a column be added to ''explain'' why the cuts were made for the specific film? It would give better context. ~Cheers, ]]] 03:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
:It's certainly ideal to include that, but it would involve ], since the SAPPRFT would never disclose its reasoning. That's why I need to list out article 16 of the new law for readers to see and come up with their own opinions. Violence in a film is definitely a forbidden element, as you could imagine. Cheers. ] (]) 04:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
::Many of the citation list a vague reasoning for what was cut. The citation for ''Miss Peregrine'' states that the "eyeball feast" scene was cut because it was deemed too violent. Similarly, the THR citation for ''Kingsman'' states that scenes were cut for violent and sexual content. The citation for ''Logan'' similarly states that cuts were made for "violence and perhaps also the “brief nudity”". Citation for ''Alien: Covenant'' states that the cuts removed gory shots and shots of violence. The citation for ''Lost City of Z'' suggests that the cuts were made to get the film under two hours and speed up the pacing to suit the local audience. It isn't OR if you're simply repeating what a reliable, published source has stated themselves, and many of the citations provide reasoning for the cuts and summaries of the kind of content that was cut. ~Cheers, ]]] 18:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
:::Vague reasoning? exactly! SAPPRFT would never disclose it. But we could guess it's due to violence, sex, etc. Pls feel free to add that column, as long as what you are about to do won't get this whole page deleted. Btw, it's not in my habit to keep discouraging people and deleting their contributions. Cheers. ] (]) 19:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
::::Vague reasoning is enough, really. It's context enough if the content was cut for gore or for sexual content or for encouraging superstition. That much is all I really think is needed, unless sources make specific mention of particular scenes, i.e. the Peregrine or Alien cases. (The Alien being missing from the movie is a rather large thing.) Btw, it's rude to bring up issues totally unrelated to the current discussion at hand and to be continually assuming bad faith of me. :) ~Cheers, ]]] 20:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


* I plan to make a major edit to this article. I'll flag the ] and others don't make any edits in the meantime to avoid unnecessary ].
== Lost City of Z & Dangal ==


:Revised highlights:
Regarding the inclusion of ''The Lost City of Z'', even if the RS is saying "appears" the RS is still reporting that the cuts were made by producers for pacing rather than the State Administration. The article itself doesn't even make the statement that the statement the producer did it is possibly false nor suggests that the cuts were actually made by the State. The onus for inclusion should be a statement that the Administration make cuts, and in this case, another source stating that it is elsewhere believed that the State actually did it or the producers did so to please the body beforehand, rather than for pacing. "Reported" is just saying another stated it, and "appears" is just as easily "is it apparent that". ~Cheers, ]]] 21:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
:I am just glad that we don't have many edit wars here. I appreciate your input. Pls don't have the impulse of deleting outright. The Lost City of Z and Dangal shouldn't be deleted, also because with the June 2017 notice from SAPPRFT, it's now illegal to spread uncut version or deleted scenes. Even commercial cut has really become a political cut. Savvy? ] (]) 22:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
::That doesn't really change that the films were initially altered by persons other than the censors and for reasons other than censoring material. The article. Something that retroactively affects them doesn't change the original intent of the alteration. Also, per ], I'm well within rights to delete things outright from the article should I have legitimate grounds on which I believe it shouldn't be there, as you are within your rights to revert it. ~Cheers, ]]] 22:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
:::It appears that you know nothing about politics in China and are "naive and simple" about how the communists in China operate. I don't want to get into "Right Great Wrongs" with you. Dangal is also cut in the United States version, but Uncle Sam has nothing to do with it. Period. But in China, you never know. Despite CFI wrote, "The cuts were not forced on them by censors but were made by star Aamir Khan to make the film more gripping for Chinese audiences, according to that film’s studio." But that film studio doesn't even have a website. And we don't have additional great RS on this. I suggest you leave Dangal without further impulse for deletion. If China is a democracy like U.S., I will let you do it.] (]) 22:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
:::The June 2017 notice came out of blue without single consultation from the people of China. It always works retroactively in China. With all due respect, please don't apply your western legal knowledge to the communist China. ] (]) 22:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
::::A studio can make a statement without having a website? And I would like to warn you about ] and ]. And, frankly, I don't really understand what your going for with half of what you wrote, including the whole bit about Right Great Wrongs and Uncle Sam. In the interest of bringing third parties to the discussion . ~Cheers, ]]] 22:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::I yield to the ]. They must know better. I am just saying, please stop deletion outright, but pls feel free to modify and discuss. That is how I practice good faith.] (]) 22:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::If you feel offended, I apologize. I just want to urge you to take these Chinese Communist things with a grain of salt instead of totally relying on the CFI article.] (]) 22:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure if the Chinese task force is active, seeing as nobody has posted to the task force's talk page in two years, but I'll post the notice there as well. Deleting content... is part of editing, and it's a part of the BRD process. And, good faith is about assuming that editors aren't out to be disruptive; your constant assumption that I am being disruptive and policing the way I am editing things is bad faith. But, it's getting off topic. ~Cheers, ]]] 22:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Deleting without first discussing on talk page is simply not how I roll. I am fine with modifying or clarifying. I think one of the admin, ] on the taskforce is still active. But I could be wrong. ] (]) 22:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::::"It lost is apparent by simply calc of two prior columns." The calculation was not done by me. It was done by CFI and directly referenced in its article. It also happens that CFI said Cloud Atlas is only 169 minutes. This is a minor deletion that I could tolerate, but I still want you to discuss first. ] (]) 02:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Listen. I've said this before. But deleting content without necessarily discussing every single change, is a legitimate way to edit, see ], and it's frankly grating your constant attempts to police me every time I remove any sort of content, including things that are by your admission minor. It isn't necessary that I run every little deletion by you. Per BRD, if you disagree, revert it and/or one of us brings it up on the talk page here. And, I know the calculation wasn't done by you but by the sources, but it's an unnecessary note seeing as they match up with the difference between the two columns. Simple calculations are allowed to be done, see ]. ~Cheers, ]]] 02:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::I have been listening, but BRD also says, "Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient." Why are you ignoring this then? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{od|:::::::::}} I support the exclusion of ''The Lost City of Z'' and ''Dangal'' due to no secondary sources indicating that censorship was a factor here. Furthermore, we need to exclude films like ''The Mummy'' if there are no secondary sources about censorship of that film. A difference in runtime should not be originally researched to be determined as censorship. Misplaced Pages follows secondary sources; we do not determine noteworthy listings ourselves. The runtime columns should be removed since they are being used as ], "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 13:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
: Yet another example of sb who don't understand China. As long as the one-party rule by communists exists in China, SAPPRFT will be the censor that haunts every filmmaker. Removal of these three films shows total ignorance of the status quo which are well provided by other RS not directly referenced, but attributable. The Mummy's runtime info is supported by extremely popular website in China. Further explanatory notes will be supplied when they are reported by English media. For now, showing the minutes is simply a statement of fact.] (]) 16:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


# The page was renamed to '''List of banned films in the People's Republic of China'''.
==article completely off==
# Added definitions section, and I'll list more than one source. ('''Reason''': so that there is a consistent standard)
At first glance the article has imho 2 major problems:
# Movies on the list will be re-edited, with full source replacement.
*a) total lack of scholarly literature on censorship in china
*b) a completely ridiculous film list, that doesn't seem to contain a single film that was actually banned, instead it seems to be a list of hollywood & bollywood blockbusters that received minor alterations. The latter is at best marginal for the article's subject.
To get a first idea regarding banned films one might look at the china section in ]. In any case the article needs a complete overhaul based on some background research and better sources.--] (]) 13:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


:I will delete the previous films, the Communist Party's film censorship was introduced after 1949. Also remove the ROC paragraph, the US Congress passed a new decree that Taiwan cannot be marked as part of China. Of course, some might think this is a political division, but I'll rename the page at the same time.
:I agree that there needs to be more scholarly literature. Searching the article title in Google Books turns up many good results. I also agree that we are missing banned films here. Maybe we can have two lists? One for banned films, and one for censor-edited films? ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 15:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
::This "humbly opinionated" subsection is totally offensive, deriding hours and hours of my hard work which is partly based on a Library of Congress citation. This page reflects the latest summary based on news still accessible to the general public instead of some "scholarly" books that are outdated. I don't mind combining the list of banned films in China with this one so we have a total picture in one location. But to say censored minutes of a film is minor is indeed ridiculous. Tell that to me when you have been actually in the film business, having produced, filmed, or edited a movie, to understand the mountains of hours behind a project. No film in this world should be subject to a censoring political body. United States have some dark history itself, but I am glad we now have a voluntary rating system under MPAA. Until that happens to China, god knows when, we must document every censored movie to the best of our ability.] (]) 16:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
:::As far as scholarship being "outdated" the article really should give a historical picture of film censorship in China. If the scholarship is dated to, say 1980s, then the article would benefit from a section on the state of film censorship in the 1980s. At this point, I would like to warn you about ], remind you again about ] and other forms of tendentious editing, and, I regret to inform you, the amount of hours put into writing an article to its current state has no bearing on whether or not it should be reshaped to something else. I do agree with what Kmhkmh has proposed. I don't really have the means, for lack of a better word, to research and add new content at this time (lots on my plate in that area), but I'd be glad to help copyedit what goes in. ~Cheers, ]]] 16:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


:'''Note''': I am not asking for consent from other users here. Mass revisions mean rewrites, sweeping edits. I will translate to English using trusted sources. --] (]) 14:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
== Changes ==
:I agree that the page needs rewrites. But, generally speaking (and this isn't limited to this article), you can't just "I am not asking for consent" because that's not how collaborative editing works. I also oppose renaming the article on the basis of other topics on China are simply named as "China", and additionally oppose removing pre-1949 films. I do think a geographical / geopolitical scope could be defined WITHOUT renaming the article. A definitions section will also need to be discussed as the scope has been discussed extensively on the history of this article. ~Cheers, ]]] 16:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


* I can't get into the details deeply, because it's a waste of time, wait until the discussion is over, and then get into an argument and no one can solve it. A complete rewrite can only be done, and then a verifiable version is formed, so many films without a source have to be removed.
{{ul|Hoverfish}}, {{ul|Supermann}}, {{ul|TenTonParasol}}, I've made the following changes:

*Removed both runtime columns due to their use to originally research differences and ultimately state a conclusion (film being censored in China, as opposed to any other reason) stated by neither source for either runtime.
: I don't even know if your Excellency has the ability to read ]? The ] doesn't mention the ] level.
*Simplified "Original release date" column to be just "Year"
: Changed its name to the ], and there is no need to call it China for short. The PRC's film censorship system is very Soviet-style, and the preceding paragraph will be deleted. Move to another page even if it exists, maybe the title could be Chinese Film Censorship (18XX-1945) or something else.
*Removed ''The Mummy'' due to no support from secondary sources
: Geopolitics can't be generalized, or rewritten with some other source, but completely rewritten, with a new definition explaining the Communist Party's film censorship (and a legal one).
Please let me know if you take issue with any of these changes so we can determine the local consensus for such edits. Any other changes you want to discuss, feel free to do so here as well. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 17:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
: Otherwise the page might even have to be abandoned in order to satisfy a single requirement.
:I disagree with removing the runtime columns. They are not original research if attributable to RS. Release date should not be shortened either. The communist party would thank you for deleting The Mummy. I can't say this enough and have left my personal opinion only on this talk page and not the actual article page. I do encourage you to combine the banned films in here if no one else takes issues. Please don't tempt me to undo your changes. Thanks. ] (]) 17:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
: In addition, a lot of ] content has been added to the page since 2017, and there were no historical paragraphs in the previous version.--] (]) 18:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
::Yes, it is original research. The policy says, ''"This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."'' We cannot analyze a film's runtimes in different countries and personally conclude ourselves that it is being censored. Even if it is indicative, ] states, ''"Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence."'' This means we need to reference secondary sources that explicitly discuss ''relevant'' cases of censorship. Find a reliable source discussing ''The Mummy'' being censored in China, and it can be included. As for banned films, I agree that they should be listed here as well. {{ul|TenTonParasol}}, you thanked my edits. I assume this means you support the edits in their entirety? Anything to adjust? ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 17:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
::There's currently only three entries on the list that are unsourced, so I'm not sure what what the "many films without a source have to be removed" refers to. I believe that a lot of the films need to be re-organized to better match what the sources actually say, but they are indeed referenced entries. My inability to read Chinese does not have a bearing on the situation and structure of the page. Also, I don't oppose fixing the entire history section, and I would be glad to see that rewritten (I do have a question if one can copyvio government documents, but that's besides the point, it needs to be rewritten to be more coherent and accessible)—but I do not see why the article needs to be restricted to those years. There is no justification for a split or for a rename. Also, this is why I said the concept of a "definition" will need to be discussed. I also didn't say the geopolitics can be ''generalized'', but rather we can ''clarify'' what we're including in relationship to a complex geopolitical problem without having to rename the article. For what it's worth, the existence of ] and ] means that we can absolutely just take out information relating to Taiwan and Hong Kong and move it to those two articles, or creating separate film articles, and I absolutely support doing so. And this is why I pointed out a discussion—the concept of censorship is rather broad: what is the definition you're proposing for this page? ~Cheers, ]]] 18:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
:::You are subjecting your personal opinion here to think runtime info is of no encyclopedic value. Common Selection Criteria is just a guideline not even actual policy. No need for me to conclude and every body could come to their own conclusion exactly why minutes were chopped off. What else could have explained it based on the environment in China. This is not OR. This is attributable though not attributed. Check OR policy one more time. Unless there is an administrator-level film buff to weigh in here, I will undo your changes.] (]) 17:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

::::Guidelines are not to be shrugged off. It is rooted in the policy of ], ''"To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."'' As far as I can tell, there are no independent sources explaining ''The Mummy'' being censored in China. It is indiscriminate to list every film that has a different runtime. Encyclopedic value needs to be determined by sources that discuss the matter, not by us. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 17:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::I do agree with it. I just was taking some time to take a closer look to see if I have any particular comments about them. But I don't. I think it may be useful to reinstate some version of the running time difference. Like, for example, ''Cloud Atlas'' lost 40 minutes, which is a pretty significant cut, and it probably better contextualizes exactly how much of the film was affected. It may be useful if the cuts were across multiple scenes, rather than a single shot being removed or a single brief element. ~Cheers, ]]] 17:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC) ::I've posted notices of this discussion at ] and ] since the split, rename, and definition of scope seems to warrant a larger discussion than just the two of us, and especially given this page has been, ah, contentious in the past. ~Cheers, ]]] 19:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
:::Uninvolved editor here who came from the China project page — While COMMONNAME normally is sufficient justification for just calling the PRC China, in this case there may be reason to make the split, namely, if the Republic of China engaged in substantive film censorship before 1949, when it fled to Taiwan. In that case, circa 1914 to 1949 film censorship in China would have been by the ROC government, and from 1949 onward it would fit within the scope of censorship in Taiwan (the ROC military regime under the KMT did indeed do a lot of film censorship during the Cold War era) whereas mainland China was governed by the CCP. Retaining "Film censorship in China" at that point would solely be a geographical sort of thing, even though what constituted "China" in the body would include two diametrically opposed polities, and accordingly, laws and modes of censorship.
:::I share a bit of confusion that TenTonParasol expresses with regards to what sort of changes are going to be made here, but in any case I think we can go ahead and be BOLD and work out the details later. Cheers and best of luck, Beta Lohman. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#ffedd1">]<span style="color:#000000"></span></span>(], ]) 17:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
::::Oh, I will also note that I'm not quite sure this article needs to be list-ified rather than maintained as an article. In fact, it might get way too unwieldy to have a list of all films censored in China in one way or another. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#ffedd1">]<span style="color:#000000"></span></span>(], ]) 17:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
::::: There's a 2010s movie censorship ], that's talking about the Taiwanese government. It's been so many years, and it's ridiculous to include Taiwan in it. After 1949, the Taiwanese government has no control over the films released in mainland China.--] (]) 03:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::Y'know, I think that's fair on the dates, that this article should be from post-1949 and then anything else should go to ] (splitting into ] as necessary) and then anything specifically relating to Hong Kong going to ]. But I still do ''not'' think the article should be renamed to "Film censorship in the People's Republic of China" if just because the main article this is split from is just at "China". Unless ] is moved to ], this article shouldn't be named. But, I do come around to having it narrowed down. ~Cheers, ]]] 17:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

::::::: To {{ping|TenTonParasol}} I ask again. So that means you are against page renaming only? Or are you also against a complete rewrite of the entry, and you insist on keeping the pre-1949 part? If so, then I won't be able to do any rewriting work. Because it must be maintained in an uncontroversial version, that is, no one can make large-scale changes. These questions are for confirmation, no intension to be revised and then inexplicably undid back.--] (]) 03:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

*{{reply to|WhinyTheYounger}} Since I have limitation on the ], I hope that ] had better reached as soon as possible. First, I'll completely rewrite the article and create two sections, "'''Overview'''" and "'''Definition'''." The overview will describe the situation of film censorship in the People's Republic of China, the legislative process, and more. The definition describes what films were officially banned, or given to ] by Hollywood studios, but failed to pass censorship.

: There, for example, 2001's ], a film that was not released in China after censors pointed out numerous problems. The Chinese news sources are here , and any English source will not mention why that movie was banned.--] (]) 03:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
::At this point, I'm ''only'' opposing renaming. I support moving pre-1949 to another relevant censorship article, or creating a separate film censorship article entirely for it, and having this cover post-1949.
::Honestly, I still don't think a specific "Definition" section is warranted because whether it was Officially Banned or failed to pass standards and thus not released can simply be included in the existing table, which already lists of both items you're seeking to "define". For example, ''Red Dawn'' is listed as simply unreleased, ''Joker'' as specifically not approved, and ''The Dark Knight'' as not submitted at all due to related censorship reasons in addition to films that were outright banned. I think pushing for a "Definition" section is trying to address an issue that doesn't exist at this article. I think the table needs to be cleaned up, and I'm thoroughly willing to do that myself while Beta rewrites the history, but I think the table is already handling the proposed "Definition" section.
::And, "Overview" is a poor name for a section, it sounds like you're simply rewriting "History"? ~Cheers, ]]] 03:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

:{{reply to|TenTonParasol}}
:Why would there be such a big opinion on these two names? That's the title of the chapter. First, the definition is for more clarity, citing 3 sources to explain what is called a banned film. This is to make the space clearer, here it has to be clear that not showing in China, not passing the censorship is not the same thing, even though the result looks the same.

:The overview is not to rewrite history, but to describe the legislative process of film censorship in China from the ], and the background of the times was that China was going to enter the WTO, so the market must be opened as soon as possible. I will use a Chinese paper to talk about the legislative process in great detail. In addition, China's film regulations have undergone two changes in '''1996''' and '''2001''', and China's film censorship department has undergone several changes. This part also delineates a table to present.

:This is an academic paper, see for yourself.<ref>:{{Cite web |title=中國電影的立法之路——從《電影管理條例》到《電影產業促進法》 |url=https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/119329/1/406901.pdf |author=梁婷婷 |year=2018 |publisher=政大機構典藏 |trans-title=The legislative road of Chinese film: from Regulations on Administration of the Films Industry to Film Industry Promotion Law}}</ref>
{{reflist}}

:And why limit me to only rewriting history? I plan to do a full source replacement of the list. I don't think fixing just one section at all will solve the problem of vague definitions, and not all films that haven't been released in China should be included. For example, the world-famous banned film "]" is banned in many countries, but it is introduced on the , but now there is no page on ]. This can only be regarded as not being released in China, and the source of the ban cannot be found.--] (]) 04:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
::I have an opinion on these two section names because the article needs to be laid out in an encyclopedic manner. "Overview" suggests something different from what you're proposing, which is a "History" section. You're describing two the history of censorship legislation in China. I do not see why what you've described cannot be integrated into the existing "History" section, which needs to be rewritten as is. The academic paper you provided would fit very well into the existing "History" section to explain these legislative processes. Separating these processes into an "Overview" section is confusing and poor layout of the article.
::Also, I don't understand what you mean by a "full source replacement". Please do not remove sources from the article unless they are bad sources. And, you misunderstand about how sourcing works. ''Blaise-moi'' actually CANNOT be added to the list because we do not have a source saying it was not released in China; a lack of a page on Douban is NOT verification it was not released, therefore ''Blaise-moi'' cannot be added on the basis of lacking a Douban page. Absolutely do not add information to the page to the effect of "there is no page on Douban, therefore it can be regarded as not being released in China". That is not how sourcing works.
::As an aside, you do not need to ping me. I watch this page, so I will see your replies here in time. ~Cheers, ]]] 04:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

::: To '''TenTonParasol''',

::: The communication seems to be very inefficient. You are completely misunderstood. ] does not have a page on Douban, which means it is not released in China. Not every movie that hasn't been released in China should be on the list, and the same goes for other movies. I know what the source means.

::: Full source replacement is the removal of content that has no source. Or a movie should be removed from the list without being banned.

::: I read an insinuation that it seems that I can't make massive revisions without authorization, but only improve what is already there? This doesn't fit my rewrite plan at all. Also, Ping is used to reply to a specific user. --] (]) 04:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
::::I feel like I understand you, but I will repeat what I believe we are both saying just to make sure we are saying the same thing: ''Baise-moi'' should ''not'' be included on the article. Any film added specifically needs a source that directly, specifically, and explicitly says some version of either "this film was banned" or "this film was not released" and going "Source: lacks a Douban page" is not sufficient. Because ''Baise-moi'' does not have this, it cannot be included. Have I understood correctly?
::::Okay, I better understand "full source replacement" now because that initially sounded like you intended to remove sources entirely. You wish to properly source information that is currently without citation, got it. (Though, I am still confused because there are no major portions of the article that are unsourced, but it is what it is.) I still do not understand what is meant by "Or a movie should be removed from the list without being banned."
::::I am not disallowing massive revisions on the page—in fact, I'm encouraging you to make the proposed rewrites to integrate the academic information and legislative processes you seek to have added to the page. My understanding of your proposal is a complete revision and replacement of what's in "]". My comment was essentially: why does the section need to be named "Overview" when it's about history of processes?
::::Also, generally speaking, improving articles generally does mean improving what is already here so long as it is relevant, deleting only information that shouldn't be included at all. Besides the information that will be moved to Taiwan and Hong Kong specific articles, which will be removed from here as we agreed, is there post-1949 information you believe should be removed as well? ~Cheers, ]]] 05:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

*To '''TenTonParasol''',

:Yes, that's right. Movies cannot be listed without a clear source stating that they are banned.

:The rest of the rest is hard to explain because your desired version is so far from my rewrite plan. To explain more, I am afraid to bring more misunderstandings.

:This is my rewrite plan. I want to focus on the banned movies in the People's Republic of China, so I have to start all over again, the historical part is too finely divided, and even the broken content has to be removed or rewritten. The specific operation process is omitted first, lest you start to interrupt my plan when you hear it.

:The way the entries are now divided is messy. So a lot of paragraphs need to be cut and even the prose cut down. However, my editing method is to use a list, so the structure will become a list of banned movies in China. This way the topic becomes another article.

:Unwanted sources may be removed to conform to the rewritten schema. Therefore, the chapter name will be changed to "'''Overview'''", which is a brief description of the process. The "'''definition'''" is to explain what is a banned film, and what kind of movie is banned in the eyes of the Chinese authorities. Here's what I mean.

:The Chinese Communist Party's film censorship was not officially enacted until ], and my focus is on banned films in the People's Republic of China. That's why I suggested changing the title to "List of Banned Movies in the People's Republic of China". Once rewritten, the subject of the entry will focus on banned films, or films that fail censorship. The time period is 1996-2001 and 2001-2017, and after 2018.

:But as I read from the previous message, you seem to be leading me towards some kind of script, and it seems like you're trying to keep things as they are as much as possible.

:It seems we can't reach a consensus. Well, it's almost two weeks into the discussion, and no editors are moving forward. Well, I give you the source, then you write it the way you want, then I retire according to the schedule.--] (]) 14:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

We literally fully agree on what the rewrite should be. I'm just saying call the "Overview" section "History" instead BECAUSE I agree with you that the current prose in the article needs to be replaced, trimmed, and rewritten. I'm literally agreeing with you that we need to delete the entire "History" section and replace it with something better, and I'm saying I think your "Overview" proposal is that. I just don't know why it needs to be called "Overview" specifically instead of "History". I'm saying do the rewrite, just the part that's "overview" should be "History" instead because it's a better section name. That's it. ~Cheers, ]]] 15:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

=== Arbitrary break ===

* I agree with the suggestion to split this into three pages, one covering the ROC (pre-1949), one covering the PRC, and one covering Taiwan. I would also note that there was film censorship in Taiwan during the Japanese colonial period so the Taiwan page would cover pre-1949 as well but in the context of Taiwan not China. ] (]) 17:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
*:Would it make sense to just do film censorship in 1. Taiwan under Japanese rule (perhaps as a part of something like ]) 2. Film censorship in the ROC (in China and then in Taiwan) and then 3. Film censorship in the PRC? <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#ffedd1">]<span style="color:#000000"></span></span>(], ]) 16:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
*::The articles should follow their parent articles. So ] per ]. This article remaining where it is per ], with new hatnotes to direct people to the other two articles; the main and film article should have matching names, so since the main censorship is at "China" rather than "the People's Republic of China", this should be as well. (If it's felt the entire topic should be at "People's Republic of China" instead, I think a discussion needs to take place at the ] article, then this article moved to match.) I think that leaves the remaining article at ] per ] (] redirects there), but I think the geographical aspect of the geopolitical scope then ends up a little awkward. But, I absolutely agree that this split makes sense. ~Cheers, ]]] 18:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
*::: The parent article would be ] not Taiwan under Japanese rule. ] (]) 18:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
*::::WhinyTheYounger's proposal is for two Taiwan related articles, a film censorship article for "Taiwan" that would be child to ] and a new, separate main censorship article for specifically Taiwan under Japanese rule. Also, it was previously mentioned there should be a ] (though not in WhinyTheYounger's most recent), and I think that's a sensible split as well. ~Cheers, ]]] 18:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::::Wait, I processed what you're saying. You're suggesting that instead of two Taiwan articles as WhinyTheYounger is proposing, there should just be the one and anything that would be at the proposed ] should go to ] (ditto with any child articles). Sensible as well. ~Cheers, ]]] 18:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
* Wait, why has the discussion shifted to film censorship in Taiwan? Should focus first on what pages will be removed and moved to new ones? I think the suggestion upstairs is writing a new entry.
: Then there is no consensus on the name change, why not focus on the censorship system of the ]? This is the existing regime and also applies to most of what follows.
: Is there any problem to rewrite the article? --] (]) 10:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
::You're more than welcome to start editing as you see fit. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#ffedd1">]<span style="color:#000000"></span></span>(], ]) 14:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
:::Ditto. It's already been stated that we're all in agreement about the changes you're going to make. We're just trying to figure out where the information already on the page that is now out of scope should be moved to. ~Cheers, ]]] 14:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

:::I also ask, Beta Lohman, that you be less aggressive regarding other potential contributors to the rewrite. A pending major rewrite does NOT mean nobody else can or should edit it, and it is inappropriate to try to use {{tl|under construction}} to warn other people away from editing. Others may edit the page while it's under construction. Per the instructions in that template, place {{tl|in use}} while you're actively making the major edit to prevent any edit conflicts. ~Cheers, ]]] 19:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

* To '''TenTonParasol''',
: ] can only be used for 2 hours, after which it will be automatically removed by the robot. I see you've edited again and ] in the ]. You have so many opinions, why don't you write it yourself? Again, are you trying to follow some script and lead the direction of the entry? And then revise every edit record immediately after I edit it? If so, I'll give up trying to rewrite.--] (]) 00:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
::I genuinely am not. I'm just remarking the proper use of {{tl|under construction}}. You cannot instruct others, including editors who might just be passing by, to NOT edit an article that is not in active change. There is a REASON {{tl|in use}} can only be used for a short time before it is automatically removed, and those templates warn not to "unnecessarily discourage others from contributing to the article". I'm just remarking the language added to the template was improperly un-collaborative. Please follow the instructions given by the template you added. This is less about this specific article but rather a general attitude to editing, and I think it would be of benefit to be less defensive of contributions you've made or intend to make. All I've done is remark that you cannot blanket tell the community to stop editing the article for several hours if you're not making edits right now.
::I also please ask you to assume good faith (]). I am not interested in asserting a specific version of the article. And, in fact, any comments I've made about the rewrite is about where to move existing content and renaming one (1) header in your proposal. I have no plans to significantly refactor any rewrites or additions, except perhaps to make grammatical corrections (and I genuinely hope you don't interpret ''that'' as trying to push a script). ~Cheers, ]]] 00:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
::: Then you should stop drawing the red line. Having discussed this for so long, I keep getting new rules and restrictions that don't help the whole project, or even add obstacles. It's quite annoying to keep getting warning messages.--] (]) 01:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
::::If you consider any of this a "red line" or strict rules or regulations, then I feel you may have continue to struggle in collaborating with others on the project. I'm simply asking you to follow the usage parameters of the template ''you'' added to the page and to stop inappropriately unnecessarily warning others to not make changes. Anyway, please, if you'd like to make the rewrite, it is indeed welcomed. ~Cheers, ]]] 02:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

== Major revision edition 1 ==

*I delete the ]. The reason takes long space, so I write here.
: <span style="color:green">Such a description should not be included. The Chinese Communist Party only imported Soviet films at that time, and Hong Kong films and other Western films were not allowed to be imported. This is equivalent to putting more than 100 movies in the world into the list, and it is an immeasurable number.</span>
--] (]) 11:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

== Major revision edition 2 ==

* I delete the historical section from 1949 to the 2020s of the ROC. I discussed the topic on the page before, but I will tell again. Basically, the article has to be rewritten entirely even on the history part. The deletion reason is found as follow:
: <span style="color:green"> After 1949, the Kuomintang government could no longer implement effective film censorship in China. These contents will be film censorship of Taiwan. So I removed this ridiculous historical narrative passage. </span>--]※] 20:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

== Major revision edition 3 ==

I plan to make massive changes as follows.
# The history section will be completely rewritten, keeping only the content closely related to the theme.
# Separate some of the films in the list, and create an new entry '''List of Banned films in the People's Republic of China'''. I estimate that there are many movies banned by the PRC, this list may be updated frequently, and a ] requires condensed bytes.
# Unreleased movies will be removed from the list. Because some movies are not released in China and the reason cannot be found out from reliable sources. It's hard to say whether such films are actually banned.
--]※] 08:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

:Hi Beta, I moved the post-1949 ROC section to ]. Please also fix it a bit. -] (]) 03:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
::{{ping|142.112.236.29}} I'll see it. But fix what?--]※] 19:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

===Update===
*I have finished editing and have completely rewritten the historical passages and added the essays as reliable sources. In addition, I removed 26 movies from the list to the new list.
:The movies that are sure how to be banned and those with official bans are put in the ''']''', where there are detailed details. The list in this article will be kept for now, even I think the description of the suspected banned films is not very accurate, and I will leave it for other researchers.
:I'll have to suspend editing the entry if there are no questions. What has to be done is done, and the ] has been reduced.--]※] 11:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

== New instance of censorship ==

Minions: The Rise of Gru should be added to this list as an example of movie censorship in China. ] (]) 14:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:50, 1 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Film censorship in China article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFilm: Chinese
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Chinese cinema task force.
WikiProject iconChina: Cinema Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Chinese cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).


Archives

1


This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Preparation of Rewriting

  • I plan to make a major edit to this article. I'll flag the In use and others don't make any edits in the meantime to avoid unnecessary edit wars.
Revised highlights:
  1. The page was renamed to List of banned films in the People's Republic of China.
  2. Added definitions section, and I'll list more than one source. (Reason: so that there is a consistent standard)
  3. Movies on the list will be re-edited, with full source replacement.
I will delete the previous films, the Communist Party's film censorship was introduced after 1949. Also remove the ROC paragraph, the US Congress passed a new decree that Taiwan cannot be marked as part of China. Of course, some might think this is a political division, but I'll rename the page at the same time.
Note: I am not asking for consent from other users here. Mass revisions mean rewrites, sweeping edits. I will translate to English using trusted sources. --Beta Lohman (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the page needs rewrites. But, generally speaking (and this isn't limited to this article), you can't just "I am not asking for consent" because that's not how collaborative editing works. I also oppose renaming the article on the basis of other topics on China are simply named as "China", and additionally oppose removing pre-1949 films. I do think a geographical / geopolitical scope could be defined WITHOUT renaming the article. A definitions section will also need to be discussed as the scope has been discussed extensively on the history of this article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I can't get into the details deeply, because it's a waste of time, wait until the discussion is over, and then get into an argument and no one can solve it. A complete rewrite can only be done, and then a verifiable version is formed, so many films without a source have to be removed.
I don't even know if your Excellency has the ability to read Chinese? The user page doesn't mention the Babel level.
Changed its name to the People's Republic of China, and there is no need to call it China for short. The PRC's film censorship system is very Soviet-style, and the preceding paragraph will be deleted. Move to another page even if it exists, maybe the title could be Chinese Film Censorship (18XX-1945) or something else.
Geopolitics can't be generalized, or rewritten with some other source, but completely rewritten, with a new definition explaining the Communist Party's film censorship (and a legal one).
Otherwise the page might even have to be abandoned in order to satisfy a single requirement.
In addition, a lot of copyright-infringing content has been added to the page since 2017, and there were no historical paragraphs in the previous version.--Beta Lohman (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
There's currently only three entries on the list that are unsourced, so I'm not sure what what the "many films without a source have to be removed" refers to. I believe that a lot of the films need to be re-organized to better match what the sources actually say, but they are indeed referenced entries. My inability to read Chinese does not have a bearing on the situation and structure of the page. Also, I don't oppose fixing the entire history section, and I would be glad to see that rewritten (I do have a question if one can copyvio government documents, but that's besides the point, it needs to be rewritten to be more coherent and accessible)—but I do not see why the article needs to be restricted to those years. There is no justification for a split or for a rename. Also, this is why I said the concept of a "definition" will need to be discussed. I also didn't say the geopolitics can be generalized, but rather we can clarify what we're including in relationship to a complex geopolitical problem without having to rename the article. For what it's worth, the existence of Censorship in Taiwan and Censorship in Hong Kong means that we can absolutely just take out information relating to Taiwan and Hong Kong and move it to those two articles, or creating separate film articles, and I absolutely support doing so. And this is why I pointed out a discussion—the concept of censorship is rather broad: what is the definition you're proposing for this page? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I've posted notices of this discussion at WT:FILM and WT:CHINA since the split, rename, and definition of scope seems to warrant a larger discussion than just the two of us, and especially given this page has been, ah, contentious in the past. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor here who came from the China project page — While COMMONNAME normally is sufficient justification for just calling the PRC China, in this case there may be reason to make the split, namely, if the Republic of China engaged in substantive film censorship before 1949, when it fled to Taiwan. In that case, circa 1914 to 1949 film censorship in China would have been by the ROC government, and from 1949 onward it would fit within the scope of censorship in Taiwan (the ROC military regime under the KMT did indeed do a lot of film censorship during the Cold War era) whereas mainland China was governed by the CCP. Retaining "Film censorship in China" at that point would solely be a geographical sort of thing, even though what constituted "China" in the body would include two diametrically opposed polities, and accordingly, laws and modes of censorship.
I share a bit of confusion that TenTonParasol expresses with regards to what sort of changes are going to be made here, but in any case I think we can go ahead and be BOLD and work out the details later. Cheers and best of luck, Beta Lohman. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I will also note that I'm not quite sure this article needs to be list-ified rather than maintained as an article. In fact, it might get way too unwieldy to have a list of all films censored in China in one way or another. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
There's a 2010s movie censorship in the paragraph, that's talking about the Taiwanese government. It's been so many years, and it's ridiculous to include Taiwan in it. After 1949, the Taiwanese government has no control over the films released in mainland China.--Beta Lohman (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Y'know, I think that's fair on the dates, that this article should be from post-1949 and then anything else should go to Censorship in Taiwan (splitting into Film censorship in Taiwan as necessary) and then anything specifically relating to Hong Kong going to Censorship in Hong Kong. But I still do not think the article should be renamed to "Film censorship in the People's Republic of China" if just because the main article this is split from is just at "China". Unless Censorship in China is moved to Censorship in the People's Republic of China, this article shouldn't be named. But, I do come around to having it narrowed down. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
To @TenTonParasol: I ask again. So that means you are against page renaming only? Or are you also against a complete rewrite of the entry, and you insist on keeping the pre-1949 part? If so, then I won't be able to do any rewriting work. Because it must be maintained in an uncontroversial version, that is, no one can make large-scale changes. These questions are for confirmation, no intension to be revised and then inexplicably undid back.--Beta Lohman (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @WhinyTheYounger: Since I have limitation on the timetable, I hope that consensus had better reached as soon as possible. First, I'll completely rewrite the article and create two sections, "Overview" and "Definition." The overview will describe the situation of film censorship in the People's Republic of China, the legislative process, and more. The definition describes what films were officially banned, or given to SARFT by Hollywood studios, but failed to pass censorship.
There, for example, 2001's Tomb Raider, a film that was not released in China after censors pointed out numerous problems. The Chinese news sources are here , and any English source will not mention why that movie was banned.--Beta Lohman (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
At this point, I'm only opposing renaming. I support moving pre-1949 to another relevant censorship article, or creating a separate film censorship article entirely for it, and having this cover post-1949.
Honestly, I still don't think a specific "Definition" section is warranted because whether it was Officially Banned or failed to pass standards and thus not released can simply be included in the existing table, which already lists of both items you're seeking to "define". For example, Red Dawn is listed as simply unreleased, Joker as specifically not approved, and The Dark Knight as not submitted at all due to related censorship reasons in addition to films that were outright banned. I think pushing for a "Definition" section is trying to address an issue that doesn't exist at this article. I think the table needs to be cleaned up, and I'm thoroughly willing to do that myself while Beta rewrites the history, but I think the table is already handling the proposed "Definition" section.
And, "Overview" is a poor name for a section, it sounds like you're simply rewriting "History"? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@TenTonParasol:
Why would there be such a big opinion on these two names? That's the title of the chapter. First, the definition is for more clarity, citing 3 sources to explain what is called a banned film. This is to make the space clearer, here it has to be clear that not showing in China, not passing the censorship is not the same thing, even though the result looks the same.
The overview is not to rewrite history, but to describe the legislative process of film censorship in China from the 1990s, and the background of the times was that China was going to enter the WTO, so the market must be opened as soon as possible. I will use a Chinese paper to talk about the legislative process in great detail. In addition, China's film regulations have undergone two changes in 1996 and 2001, and China's film censorship department has undergone several changes. This part also delineates a table to present.
This is an academic paper, see for yourself.
  1. :梁婷婷 (2018). "中國電影的立法之路——從《電影管理條例》到《電影產業促進法》" (PDF). 政大機構典藏.
And why limit me to only rewriting history? I plan to do a full source replacement of the list. I don't think fixing just one section at all will solve the problem of vague definitions, and not all films that haven't been released in China should be included. For example, the world-famous banned film "Baise-moi" is banned in many countries, but it is introduced on the Chinese website, but now there is no page on Douban. This can only be regarded as not being released in China, and the source of the ban cannot be found.--Beta Lohman (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I have an opinion on these two section names because the article needs to be laid out in an encyclopedic manner. "Overview" suggests something different from what you're proposing, which is a "History" section. You're describing two the history of censorship legislation in China. I do not see why what you've described cannot be integrated into the existing "History" section, which needs to be rewritten as is. The academic paper you provided would fit very well into the existing "History" section to explain these legislative processes. Separating these processes into an "Overview" section is confusing and poor layout of the article.
Also, I don't understand what you mean by a "full source replacement". Please do not remove sources from the article unless they are bad sources. And, you misunderstand about how sourcing works. Blaise-moi actually CANNOT be added to the list because we do not have a source saying it was not released in China; a lack of a page on Douban is NOT verification it was not released, therefore Blaise-moi cannot be added on the basis of lacking a Douban page. Absolutely do not add information to the page to the effect of "there is no page on Douban, therefore it can be regarded as not being released in China". That is not how sourcing works.
As an aside, you do not need to ping me. I watch this page, so I will see your replies here in time. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
To TenTonParasol,
The communication seems to be very inefficient. You are completely misunderstood. Baise-moi does not have a page on Douban, which means it is not released in China. Not every movie that hasn't been released in China should be on the list, and the same goes for other movies. I know what the source means.
Full source replacement is the removal of content that has no source. Or a movie should be removed from the list without being banned.
I read an insinuation that it seems that I can't make massive revisions without authorization, but only improve what is already there? This doesn't fit my rewrite plan at all. Also, Ping is used to reply to a specific user. --Beta Lohman (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I feel like I understand you, but I will repeat what I believe we are both saying just to make sure we are saying the same thing: Baise-moi should not be included on the article. Any film added specifically needs a source that directly, specifically, and explicitly says some version of either "this film was banned" or "this film was not released" and going "Source: lacks a Douban page" is not sufficient. Because Baise-moi does not have this, it cannot be included. Have I understood correctly?
Okay, I better understand "full source replacement" now because that initially sounded like you intended to remove sources entirely. You wish to properly source information that is currently without citation, got it. (Though, I am still confused because there are no major portions of the article that are unsourced, but it is what it is.) I still do not understand what is meant by "Or a movie should be removed from the list without being banned."
I am not disallowing massive revisions on the page—in fact, I'm encouraging you to make the proposed rewrites to integrate the academic information and legislative processes you seek to have added to the page. My understanding of your proposal is a complete revision and replacement of what's in "People's Republic of China". My comment was essentially: why does the section need to be named "Overview" when it's about history of processes?
Also, generally speaking, improving articles generally does mean improving what is already here so long as it is relevant, deleting only information that shouldn't be included at all. Besides the information that will be moved to Taiwan and Hong Kong specific articles, which will be removed from here as we agreed, is there post-1949 information you believe should be removed as well? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • To TenTonParasol,
Yes, that's right. Movies cannot be listed without a clear source stating that they are banned.
The rest of the rest is hard to explain because your desired version is so far from my rewrite plan. To explain more, I am afraid to bring more misunderstandings.
This is my rewrite plan. I want to focus on the banned movies in the People's Republic of China, so I have to start all over again, the historical part is too finely divided, and even the broken content has to be removed or rewritten. The specific operation process is omitted first, lest you start to interrupt my plan when you hear it.
The way the entries are now divided is messy. So a lot of paragraphs need to be cut and even the prose cut down. However, my editing method is to use a list, so the structure will become a list of banned movies in China. This way the topic becomes another article.
Unwanted sources may be removed to conform to the rewritten schema. Therefore, the chapter name will be changed to "Overview", which is a brief description of the process. The "definition" is to explain what is a banned film, and what kind of movie is banned in the eyes of the Chinese authorities. Here's what I mean.
The Chinese Communist Party's film censorship was not officially enacted until 1996, and my focus is on banned films in the People's Republic of China. That's why I suggested changing the title to "List of Banned Movies in the People's Republic of China". Once rewritten, the subject of the entry will focus on banned films, or films that fail censorship. The time period is 1996-2001 and 2001-2017, and after 2018.
But as I read from the previous message, you seem to be leading me towards some kind of script, and it seems like you're trying to keep things as they are as much as possible.
It seems we can't reach a consensus. Well, it's almost two weeks into the discussion, and no editors are moving forward. Well, I give you the source, then you write it the way you want, then I retire according to the schedule.--Beta Lohman (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

We literally fully agree on what the rewrite should be. I'm just saying call the "Overview" section "History" instead BECAUSE I agree with you that the current prose in the article needs to be replaced, trimmed, and rewritten. I'm literally agreeing with you that we need to delete the entire "History" section and replace it with something better, and I'm saying I think your "Overview" proposal is that. I just don't know why it needs to be called "Overview" specifically instead of "History". I'm saying do the rewrite, just the part that's "overview" should be "History" instead because it's a better section name. That's it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Then there is no consensus on the name change, why not focus on the censorship system of the People's Republic of China? This is the existing regime and also applies to most of what follows.
Is there any problem to rewrite the article? --Beta Lohman (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to start editing as you see fit. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 14:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Ditto. It's already been stated that we're all in agreement about the changes you're going to make. We're just trying to figure out where the information already on the page that is now out of scope should be moved to. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I also ask, Beta Lohman, that you be less aggressive regarding other potential contributors to the rewrite. A pending major rewrite does NOT mean nobody else can or should edit it, and it is inappropriate to try to use {{under construction}} to warn other people away from editing. Others may edit the page while it's under construction. Per the instructions in that template, place {{in use}} while you're actively making the major edit to prevent any edit conflicts. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • To TenTonParasol,
In use can only be used for 2 hours, after which it will be automatically removed by the robot. I see you've edited again and posted a critique in the edit summary. You have so many opinions, why don't you write it yourself? Again, are you trying to follow some script and lead the direction of the entry? And then revise every edit record immediately after I edit it? If so, I'll give up trying to rewrite.--Beta Lohman (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I genuinely am not. I'm just remarking the proper use of {{under construction}}. You cannot instruct others, including editors who might just be passing by, to NOT edit an article that is not in active change. There is a REASON {{in use}} can only be used for a short time before it is automatically removed, and those templates warn not to "unnecessarily discourage others from contributing to the article". I'm just remarking the language added to the template was improperly un-collaborative. Please follow the instructions given by the template you added. This is less about this specific article but rather a general attitude to editing, and I think it would be of benefit to be less defensive of contributions you've made or intend to make. All I've done is remark that you cannot blanket tell the community to stop editing the article for several hours if you're not making edits right now.
I also please ask you to assume good faith (WP:GOOD FAITH). I am not interested in asserting a specific version of the article. And, in fact, any comments I've made about the rewrite is about where to move existing content and renaming one (1) header in your proposal. I have no plans to significantly refactor any rewrites or additions, except perhaps to make grammatical corrections (and I genuinely hope you don't interpret that as trying to push a script). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Then you should stop drawing the red line. Having discussed this for so long, I keep getting new rules and restrictions that don't help the whole project, or even add obstacles. It's quite annoying to keep getting warning messages.--Beta Lohman (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
If you consider any of this a "red line" or strict rules or regulations, then I feel you may have continue to struggle in collaborating with others on the project. I'm simply asking you to follow the usage parameters of the template you added to the page and to stop inappropriately unnecessarily warning others to not make changes. Anyway, please, if you'd like to make the rewrite, it is indeed welcomed. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Major revision edition 1

Such a description should not be included. The Chinese Communist Party only imported Soviet films at that time, and Hong Kong films and other Western films were not allowed to be imported. This is equivalent to putting more than 100 movies in the world into the list, and it is an immeasurable number.

--Beta Lohman (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Major revision edition 2

  • I delete the historical section from 1949 to the 2020s of the ROC. I discussed the topic on the page before, but I will tell again. Basically, the article has to be rewritten entirely even on the history part. The deletion reason is found as follow:
After 1949, the Kuomintang government could no longer implement effective film censorship in China. These contents will be film censorship of Taiwan. So I removed this ridiculous historical narrative passage. --Beta Lohman※Office box 20:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Major revision edition 3

I plan to make massive changes as follows.

  1. The history section will be completely rewritten, keeping only the content closely related to the theme.
  2. Separate some of the films in the list, and create an new entry List of Banned films in the People's Republic of China. I estimate that there are many movies banned by the PRC, this list may be updated frequently, and a long-form entry requires condensed bytes.
  3. Unreleased movies will be removed from the list. Because some movies are not released in China and the reason cannot be found out from reliable sources. It's hard to say whether such films are actually banned.

--Beta Lohman※Office box 08:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Beta, I moved the post-1949 ROC section to Cinema of Taiwan#Film censorship. Please also fix it a bit. -142.112.236.29 (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
@142.112.236.29: I'll see it. But fix what?--Beta Lohman※Office box 19:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Update

  • I have finished editing and have completely rewritten the historical passages and added the essays as reliable sources. In addition, I removed 26 movies from the list to the new list.
The movies that are sure how to be banned and those with official bans are put in the List of films banned in China, where there are detailed details. The list in this article will be kept for now, even I think the description of the suspected banned films is not very accurate, and I will leave it for other researchers.
I'll have to suspend editing the entry if there are no questions. What has to be done is done, and the article size has been reduced.--Beta Lohman※Office box 11:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

New instance of censorship

Minions: The Rise of Gru should be added to this list as an example of movie censorship in China. Good day, fellows! (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Categories: