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 20:01, 1 August 2017 editMarnetteD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers333,261 edits →Discussion: jeepers← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:50, 1 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,162 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(189 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Film |class=start |Chinese=yes}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject China |class=Start|importance=low|film=yes}} {{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)
::::::If there is a RS, then the reasoning can certainly be given. I like the "Notes" column, though, as this leaves space for various comments and information.] (]) 04:36, 3 July 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)
:::{{ping|Kmhkmh}} I'm curious. Did you have any particular scholarship in mind, or were you talking generally? If you had specific academic pieces or books in mind, I was thinking if may be useful to just add them to the article right now in a further reading section, and then later build section off it. If you didn't have anything in mind, that's alright. I just thought I ought to ask. ~Cheers, ]]] 18:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
::::No, I didn't have a particular publication in mind and was talking was generally. Since it is well known topic, but I'd expect sufficient scholarly or high quality journalistic literature to exist.--] (]) 21:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::Cool, cool. Sometimes people just happen to have a a title off the top of their heads. Just wanted to check. ~Cheers, ]]] 22:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
{{ping|Supermann}} I didn't mean to deride or question the long hours you've put into the article and I'm sorry if the criticism was formulated overly harsh. However for WP ultimately the result matters and needs match WP's requirements. Investing a lot of work in a false approach is no justification or license to pursue a false approach in WP. The two problems I've mentioned above seem rather obvious to me. Spending many hours in libraries to check if and how various blockbuster releases for China got modified has its value and might be personally interesting, but with regard to this article under its current title it is not time well spend. From WP's perspective those hours better would have been spent on researching scholarly literature and information on films banned in China.--] (]) 21:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
::You said you didn't mean it, but your patronizing writing spoke otherwise. You didn't see me lecture you on mathematics, right? I hope you could soon become a subject matter expert on film censorship in China by reading volumes of scholarly literature.] (]) 02:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
:::Well again I'm sorry if I have offended you personally. But also again, this doesn't change one bit for the 2 problems of the article I've mentioned above. I'm sorry if you felt lectured, but if you set up an article that obviously fails basic WP requirements (such as title matching content), somebody will point that out eventually and the article will need to be overhauled accordingly. There is simply no way that you can have a list/article on film censorship in China and not even mentioning one of the banned films. That's like creating an article "United States of America" and then only write about Hawaii and Puerto Rico in it.--] (]) 04:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
::::I have never disapproved adding banned films here. In fact, I have since added several not previously written banned films, plus copying the rest of the banned films here. That is called leadership! Also, looking back, adding the 1930s here to introduce context is very jarring, because it refers to the censorship of ] not ]. They are two different governments until eventual re-unification. There is still supposed to be ] between the two. ] (]) 17:30, 27 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.
*Simplified "Original release date" column to be just "Year"
*Removed ''The Mummy'' due to no support from secondary sources
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)
: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)
::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)
:::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 about 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. I mean, i wouldn't reinstate running time outright. Just, like, add it into the notes column like "Almost 40 minutes were cut." to be sitting alongside explanation of what was cut. But, for specific cases. ~Cheers, ]]] 17:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::Yes, a quick ] shows reliable sources discussing this particular cutting of ''Cloud Atlas'' by Chinese censors. Both length and content could be explained in the film's "Notes" section. I don't think we should avoid listing a film if the cut seems minimal, though. If sources discuss it substantively, we should include it. I'm less sure about an example like the "R-rated Films in China" reference. It identifies which films were censored or not, but it does not really explain much why for each and every one. We may want to find more substance for each film beyond this one reference. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 17:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::::If you are citing policy, then I'll cite policy too. ] You are now part of the Chinese communist forces that censor things. Despite your prolific work on films, your edits have extremely little to do with Chinese films and therefore you are not even a subject matter expert to perform such massive edits in removing the runtime while calling it encyclopedically unimportant. I am saving my creation offline in case it becomes unrecognized over the time, thanks to you.] (]) 17:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::::{{ec}} I meant as far as noting how much it shaved off the running time is concerned. I wouldn't mention how much shorter the overall running time for ''Miss Peregrine'' is because it's only one minute, but yeah, ''Miss Peregrine'' should still be in the list even if the cut is arguably minimal. If the cut is especially substantial, it may be beneficial to mention how many overall minutes were lost. If the cut is minimal, such a mention should be left out. ~Cheers, ]]] 17:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Firstly, "Misplaced Pages is not censored" isn't applicable to this situation? There's no attempt to remove material that may be objectionable or offensive. Erik is just trying to determine a consistent low threshold for inclusion. And it's sensible that inclusion ought to be based on secondary sources noting what specific material has been cut. Also, again, I recommend looking at ] and ] and ]. Also, .
::::::::At any rate, I'll see if I can find anything to for the citation you're talking about. ~Cheers, ]]] 18:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::It was "cute" because I feel like I have nowhere else to turn to. This should not be the feeling from working on wikipedia. If I am employed and have a real full-time paying job, I won't bother engaging with you guys furthers. I am taking my creation offline, since I just don't think your edits are of good faith. That being said, however, I do consider adding in banned films a good-faith edit.] (]) 18:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::Please assume good faith. Please also realize that Misplaced Pages ''follows''; it does not lead. Our roles as editors is to summarize what independent sources have written about various topics and to balance the coverage accordingly. We cannot be trailblazers here. We provide content that is strongly backed by those other than us. This is going to mean that not every film is demonstrably worth listing. We can cover overall censorship, such as the % of films censored vs. those not censored, and provide a list of films as a list of noteworthy cases (meaning that it arose to the attention of independent sources, not just us). As others have argued, this has more encyclopedic value than listing every film with a different runtime. This is also supported by ], ''" The content of a list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."'' Due weight is determined by representation in reliable sources, which is why ''The Mummy'' does not qualify. All these various guidelines and policies indicate that while the topic itself is valid, we need to present it as an encyclopedia. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 18:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::"The very act of citing AGF often reflects non-commitment to problem and such a rush to judgment ironically might lead to the judgment that bad faith is being assumed."]Your edits in removing the runtime are too massive to be ignored.] (]) 02:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::It's possible going to come off overly rude, but there's an irony in your pointing out about invoking AGF may actually be assuming bad faith, considering my comments about your own constant urging of others to AGF. And, again, "too massive to be ignored"? Your unwillingness to submit to a (however small) consensus nor even try to understand the rationale that others are giving is a constant display of ] and a general unwillingness to collaborate with others or submit to the general way things work on Misplaced Pages. I'm not issuing a threat, but this is a road that eventually ends up at ]. ~Cheers, ]]] 02:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
{{od|::::::::::::}} I've posted a neutral notice at WT:FILM for other editors to review the changes made. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 02:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
:I wasn't the first one to pull up AGF. The ] has yet to weigh in. I suggest you non-experts leave this for now and focus on other edits. Let the experts to make this page of true encyclopedic value.] (]) 03:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
:I have requested formal mediation, since this dispute is a more difficult dispute. ] should also have a chance to chime in before things could get out of hand. ] (]) 03:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
::{{ec}} I'm still doubting how active the task force itself is, and most of the members listed haven't edited since before 2015. But I've gone and posted a neutral notice on the talk pages of six editors who have listed themselves as members of the task force and who have also made an edit recently. And, again, I ask you to ] and ]. ~Cheers, ]]] 03:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
:Other than urging all to be civil and discuss this in an objective manner, I thought The Mummy was censored because it was too scary? I do not live in the PRC and I've always thought it was the lack of a rating system which makes it impossible to screen any nudity or true horror in the cinemas there. ] (]) 05:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
::There is no secondary source discussing ''The Mummy'' and Chinese censors, so we cannot speculate. It should not be listed unless we have a source discussing it, rather than using a non-expert implying a conclusion by listing different runtimes. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 11:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
::{{ul|Kmhkmh}}, your thoughts on the changes made? ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 11:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
:::Another unemployed day for me to be here. I'll say this before I disengage. If adding back the RS'd runtime columns, which is not OR in my opinion and adds tremendous encyclopedic value to this page, is easy without repeated hours of hard manual labor, {{ul|Erik}}, you could go ahead and be bold again. What I realized last night was that is mission impossible, since intermediate edits soon followed by {{ul|TenTonParasol}} would require manual edits all over again. That's why I had to undo hers before I undo yours. Before WikiProject China and the task force could chime in, I want everyone, who is not this topic's subject matter expert, to let go of their urges. That is why I have requested for mediation that both of you have not yet accepted. I kept being labeled doing personal attacks, when I had apologized on this very page and have shown compromise numerous times before Erik's massive deletion took place. If that is not AGF, I don't know what is. I hope it is not incident like this that have pushed the experts from WikiProject China and the task force away. And I also reiterate my support for combining the banned films in here, raised by {{ul|Kmhkmh}}, without deleting the runtime columns and simplifying the release dates. We just need better coordination with editors on the ]. Adding scholarly literature is also welcome.] (]) 12:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
::::My focus is on the content, and your version goes against the policies and guidelines. You are not an expert on this topic, and nor are we. That is exactly why we need secondary sources discussing this topic, including for each film listed. You are trying to justify the problematic part of your content; please realize how much of your other content is acceptable ''because'' of the secondary sourcing. The content that is not backed by such sourcing does not belong. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 13:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::If you're staking the inclusion of the runtime columns on the basis of them not taking hours of repeated manual labor to put back in, I'll go ahead and remove them, as someone with experience putting in information for tables of middling to long length. Less flippantly, this isn't much of an olive branch since you're continuing to ask us to stop editing altogether because of edits you don't like and refusing to consider the rationale for those edits that others have given. On a non-content side, because I'm not as valiant as Erik is, the constant telling others to stop editing on some determined non-expert status and to "let go of their urges" (as if it's an irrational impulse rather than a considered edit) and leave editing to others, like yourself apparently, is quite patronizing.


: I don't even know if your Excellency has the ability to read ]? The ] doesn't mention the ] level.
:::::Also, why is it necessary that we have the full date? Since Erik had pointed it out, I agree: simplifying the release date column to year would be beneficial. If the exact date would help for context, I would say a case like ''Logan'' (released two days after effective date of the law), it can be noted in the notes column. ~Cheers, ]]] 14:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
: 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.
::::::We need the full date to keep track of this project, since I am taking leadership (not ownership) here to create. Also, I must clarify that putting in the runtime column itself isn't difficult. It's the citation that supports the runtime that is time-consuming. I just need those China project teams to chime in as well. Is it so hard to wait just a couple days before deleting those columns? ] (]) 14:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
: 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 ] 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)
::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)


::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)
::Since I was mentioned at the top of this section but have been too busy elsewhere to react, I want all involved editors to know that I am for removing completely the columns "Original runtime" and "Runtime in China" from the article, as they are misleading. By themselves they do not prove anything, AND they constitue Original Research. If the missing time <u>of a specific censored scene</u> is important and verifiable, it can be mentioned in parenthesis in the notes along with a citation about the timing of the <u>censored part</u> -not a citation merely showing timing difference. I have never heard before of an article as being under an editor's "leadership", however I do know that ] has to be respected. ] <small>]</small> 21:53, 14 June 2017 (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 agree with removing the runtimes. They encourage the perception that the time difference reflects the censorhip and this is not necessarily the case. In some cases it is possible Chinese content has been added so that the film qualifies for co-production status. If a source explictly identifies how much was cut then this can be added to the notes column. ] (]) 01:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
:::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)
=== Arbitrary break ===
:To add to the discussion above, do you suppose a "Country of origin" column would be beneficial? At least, I was working on a table for banned films working off ] and I'm sure it would be useful for at least that table. But, would it be beneficial for the list of edited films? ~Cheers, ]]] 14:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
::I don't mind that. Once again, I would love to compromise.] (]) 14:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
: Responding here. ], I am from the China project, and I speak Chinese. There is minimal activity there unfortunately, including myself, so the idea of waiting is fruitless. I do not have expertise in films, but neither do most of us as noted above. I did read through several Chinese articles, and I will just offer my thoughts since I cannot make the commitment. Yes, I understand the prevailing negative sentiment domestically on different forms of censorship, whether it is imposed by the administration or self-censored by the film producers. My thoughts is that, rather than imposing an criteria that would call for the inclusion of every film imported, more efforts should be spent on writing about the nature of film censorship in China.


*{{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.
: In the meanwhile, just to focus on ] for now. The source you have provided includes a picture of approval from the SARFT and a group of users speculating the time differential on whether or not the film was actually censored. Until an actual verifiable source that details the nature of the censorship and rationale, the inclusion is questionable and cannot stand the challenge from both the policies and the ]. ]] 16:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


: 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)
Since I was asked above, I'm ok with removing running times although I don't have a strong opinion or preference on that. However I agree that the list shouldn't contain OR by Wikipedians and differences in running times alone cannot be read as censorship. In general for every film in the list, we should have a source more or less explicitly stating a modifcation due censorship/legal requirements and not just a different running time.--] (]) 22:08, 15 June 2017 (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}}
== Banned films ==
: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.
A couple of banned films we can list here are ''Seven Years in Tibet'' and ''Kundun''. A source for them is . We should put banned films above edited films as the more prominent section (especially when the latter has examples of a few minutes taken out). ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 14:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
:Cool, cool. I'm also slowing working my way through entries located at ]. Taking a while because I'm verifying the sources listed there and trying to located better sources. And that switch is sensible. I'll do it now. ~Cheers, ]]] 14:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
:Another banned film is afaik ]. Generally speaking there is probably a larger number films that deal with Tibet, are critical in its depiction of communism/communist party/government in China, were made in Taiwan or Hongkong that might have been banned in China. X-rated movies with sexual or erotic content were probably often banned or cut/edited as well. It might be worth to mention that pornographic films are/were illegal in general.--] (]) 20:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
::I was looking for sources for Red Corner! It's a little annoying because more sources like to mention Richard Gere was in it ''and'' he was banned from travelling to China than the film itself being banned. I'll continue looking for a source. I'm also trying to track down films about Tibet or are positive about Tibet generally. I'll try to see about films from Taiwan and Hong Kong, and about pornographic films. ~Cheers, ]]] 20:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
:::Here is a sourced explicitly mentioning the film being banned in china: --] (]) 22:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
:::A source on the illegality on pornography in China:
:::And a recent Hongkong film banned in China: ]--] (]) 22:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
::::Ten Years have been added to the list. Pornography is already mentioned as a subject to be banned. More detailed examples on that were given on June 30 by another industry body called CNSA. ] (]) 01:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


: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>
== Runtime columns ==
{{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)
Hello. I would like to call on the following 2017 active members:{{ping|Andrzejbanas}}, {{ping|Benlisquare}}, {{ping|CWH}}, {{ping|DORC }}, {{ping|Huaiwei}}, {{ping|Lugnuts}} and {{ping|Alex Shih}} of the ] to generally comment on whether the runtime columns should be kept. What they look like could only be found by going into the page history since {{ping|TenTonParasol}}, {{ping|Erik}}, {{ping|Hoverfish}} and {{ping|Kmhkmh}} are all for their removal. Exhausting discussions have been conducted among us and they still could not convince me.
::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''',
Again, one column for theatrical runs in major film markets and another for runtime approved by SAPPRFT, sourced to either ] or ] in Chinese for consistency, because non-Chinese readers could still command/ctrl+f to look up the runtime for verification. ] says citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Misplaced Pages. Based on the latest June 30, 2017 guidelines from the China Netcasting Services Association, an organization subject to SAPPRFT, we could now see more clearly what content is on the radar of SAPPRFT. I do think the runtime columns are helpful from a mathematical/quantifiable standpoint to understand how much of a film is censored. With reasoning now given for most of the censored films, I do believe it's time to add back the runtime columns. I have already compromised on the arguments that runtime alone doesn't suffice and release year don't have to include exact dates for better tracking, but I reject the arguments that having these two columns are ], or still INDISCRIMINATE that do not have any encyclopedic values. No single website on the Internet has come up with such an exhaustive list. Let's make it great again by adhering to the last of the ]! And the truth on the censorship of ] will eventually come out when the bluray is released.] (]) 04:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
::Thanks for pinging me. I strongly support restoring the run-time columns. I teach China film courses and do research on Chinese films. Run-times can almost always be sourced reliably enough, and are useful for recent films in telling which version you are getting.
::What raises questions and is NOT possible to reliably source is the reason for "editing." Somtimes it's censorship, sometimes even a film shown in a theater is a version shortened to show on TV, sometimes because the theaters want to sell more popcorn, or studio executives think they know better than the director, or because... well, who knows? All we should do, and we ''should'' do it, is give readers the running times in each country and let readers draw any conclusions. That is, no need for a column doing the subtracting (or addition, in some cases).


::: 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.
::As I mentioned above, the "reasoning" is often unclear, disputed, or alleged, so I favor the "Notes" column.] (]) 04:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
:::I think the issue is that runtime doesn't necessarily mean that the film is ''censored''. Like, if the film is edited for reasons ''other'' than censorship—as CWH points out for marketing, or shortened for TV, etc—and like, those shouldn't be included on this article. "Let readers draw any conclusions" is basically akin to ]. The article shouldn't ''do'' that. ~Cheers, ]]] 05:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
::::Because runtime is always approved by SAPPRFT, the state censor has the final say, regardless of what producers intend to do. Those Chinese websites supporting the Chinese runtime do also explicitly list the runtime in other major film markets as a free service to let readers know what is going on, so we are not "implying a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." So it's not OR nor SYNTH. If you don't believe me, go to a Chinese runtime in the page history, and ctrl/command+f on the source site to look for the prevailing western runtime. ] (]) 06:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
{{od|::::}}Sorry, {{u|TenTonParasol}}, for adding "reasons other than censorship," which were a distraction. You are right that these should not be part of this article. My basic point is still that runtime is useful, and the films on the list must be referenced as censorship.] (]) 16:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
:I think that change in runtime is useful to note when content is added or the runtime is significantly reduced. And such can be noted in the notes column. I'm just wary of using runtime alone to put forward the idea that a film has been censored. And, like, I know there's been prior dispute about what exactly the criteria of inclusion is, and whether or not a producer voluntarily editing a film down for marketing reasons falls within inclusion. My understand from recent consensus is that it doesn't. ~Cheers, ]]] 00:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
::Only fewer than 1/4 on the list doesn't currently have a reasoning note thanks to lousy writers from the China Film Insiders, but still it's a source of some sort. The consensus as I understood it is no consensus, but I just don't want to engage in further editing wars.] (]) 01:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
:::There's four people who are in support of removing runtimes, one person unopposed but with no strong feelings. The consensus has been in favor of removing runtimes. There's at least three persons stating that inclusion criteria excludes those altered voluntarily without demand from the government. ~Cheers, ]]] 01:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
::::Now that I pointed out the Chinese runtime sources from Douban/Maoyan also do list western runtime, I think whoever supports removing them should rethink if it is still OR. The sources distinguish the runtime for a reason. Censorship. Period. The evidence is now mounting. ] (]) 04:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::Until the source explicitly says "It was cut five minutes due to censorship" it's OR because you're determining an implicit intention that isn't stated on the source itself. The sourcing on runtimes isn't the issue the issue is "a different runtime automatically means that the film was censored, i.e the SAPPRFT demanded the film be edited". A source listing two runtimes is not that. ~Cheers, ]]] 04:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::There is still naivete on your part regarding censorship. It's like you just don't get it. Time to IAR.] (]) 06:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::::And you're still not understanding how things work. IAR isn't leave to do whatever you want. Not even the no firm rules pillar allows one to do whatever they want. There needs to be some sort of defined scope for the article, we can't just list every single film that's ever been edited for release in China for every single reason. That's indiscriminate, see ]. Every film listed on it needs a strong rationale for inclusion. IAR doesn't give you leave to go against consensus. This has been stated by a handful of editors other than myself, and you're just being dismissive and condescending. I understand what your point is regarding censorship in China, but the article needs a defined definition of it. Is that definition going to be "this film was edited in any way by anyone, voluntarily or not, for any reason"? Is that definition going to be "this film was changed under direction or pressure by a government body" (which is generally the more traditional definition of censorship)? If anything, I'd say for a film to be included, you'd literally need a source that literally has the word "censored" in it. Otherwise, we're speculating on reasons. And we cannot do that. It has been stated by other editors (including myself, to be transparent) that you're attempting to soapbox and advocacy edit and generally be tendentious on this topic to push a particular point of view, so your constant misconstruing of IAR to dismiss consensus and condescension just feels a part of that. ~Cheers, ]]] 12:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::::TenTonParasol is correct that the consensus is against including runtime columns, and there is no new argument to include it. The root problem of including them stays the same. She is also correct in saying that a source needs to clearly state that a film has been censored. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 12:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::::I agree with TenTonParasol here. There needs to be a proper definition of censorship and/or it is be assumed the common use of the word applies ("this film was changed under direction or pressure by a government body"). Any film added here needs to have a source stating censorship explicitly.--] (]) 13:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Indeed the source has to literally mention the film was "censored" and IF it mentions the duration of the "censored" part, then this timing can be mentioned. We are not going to decide here that a film was censored because of any indication that we are convinced must have been censorship. This is one issue. The other is that when there is a clear consensus against including runtimes and one editor keeps bringing back the issue and insisting we don't get it and he does, it tends to be disruptive. ] <small>]</small> 22:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I am not doing soapboxing, but I want all the editors, {{ping|TenTonParasol}} in particular, to know that today is the day that Nobel Peace Prize winner ] died.] (]) 19:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::And how is that relevant to this article or this discussion? ] ~Cheers, ]]] 19:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::People die from censorship in China. Cheers as you put it.] (]) 20:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::Still not actually relevant to this page nor the runtime columns. And let's leave my signature, which is as it is literally every single time I sign a page and has no bearing about my attitude toward any discussion at hand, out of it. ~Cheers, ]]] 20:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::All what I have been trying to say is we need to use more primary sources here, because secondary sources may not write about these stuff all the time due to manpower/budgetary constraints, etc. For example, today I have 200% confirmation from Universal Pictures that ] is 110 minutes, not 107 minutes. This means the Chinese release of 106 minutes is definitely censored. Yet China Film Insider has been still unwilling to write about it, thinking the time difference is only due to the trailer of ] attached to the end credits of The Mummy. When I invoked IAR, I meant not carte blanche. I mean let's not make Misplaced Pages too tertiary source! How many Liu Xiaobo have to die before you realize the censorship problem in China. Look at how Dr. Liu is censored post death at https://www.ft.com/content/b6d56066-6847-11e7-8526-7b38dcaef614 I beg you. No more stubbornness in not using the runtime columns.] (]) 17:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The usage of primary sources, rather the avoiding of making interpretations of primary sources, isn't something that's limited to this article. The policy on primary sources, ], states: {{tquote|Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.}} Stating that "shorter runtime = censorship" is an interpretation of the primary source. Misplaced Pages, by definition, ''is'' a tertiary source. We're not saying there ISN'T a censorship problem in China, we're just saying that the way we write about it must be done in a certain way. ~Cheers, ]]] 18:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::We are not writing the whole page on primary sources. We are just using the runtime column to make descriptive statements of facts that the runtime is shortened. Given the fact that PRC does have a censor, this is where I am invoking IAR, no more so-called MUST. We could make further qualitative interpretation if secondary sources are willing to do it, but the runtime column is a quantitative description of censorship.] (]) 18:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::It's been explained before, over and over. It is an interpretative statement to say "shorter runtime = state censorship". That has not changed. It is genuinely unfortunate that it is difficult for secondary sources to write about the topic, but we are restricted. We cannot make the interpretation ourselves. A shorter runtime is quantitative of nothing other than a shorter runtime. As has been discussed all over the page, runtime differences can occur for reasons ''other'' than state censorship. State censorship sometimes doesn't alter the runtime at all. None of this has changed. ~Cheers, ]]] 18:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Then you kept forgetting the June 2017 notice from SAPPRFT which requires non-release of other versions. For The Mummy, 106 min is the only version allowed to be seen in China. Not the 110 min. If that's not censorship as well, then what is? ] (]) 18:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
{{od|::::::::::::::::}} Frankly, whether or not films altered for reasons other than state censorship being affected by the June notice should be discussed as under the scope of this article. But that's not the topic at hand here. As stated before, we cannot speculate on ''why'' something is. We need a reliable secondary source, or a statement from the filmmakers themselves, saying that it is state censorship. You are stubbornly refusing to understand what the policies on sourcing and original research is. Personally, I agree with you that ''The Mummy'' is probably censored. Does my opinion matter a damn whit? No. If there is no secondary source containing the word "censored" in it, we cannot say that it was censored. ~Cheers, ]]] 18:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
:"Personally, I agree with you that ''The Mummy'' is probably censored." So hard to elicit this out of you, but I do think your personal opinion matters. And this is where IAR should work. And you are still not getting it.] (]) 19:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
::No, it actually doesn't. My opinion that a film is censored is not at all grounds for inclusion on the article or what is said about the article. The only thing that matters is what is stated by reliable secondary sources or, in this case, the filmmakers themselves. I can go on all day about how this film or that film is censorship, but it means absolutely ''shit all'' until a secondary reliable source backs the statement. You are misunderstanding how to construct articles, the general purpose of Misplaced Pages, how the verifiability policy (]) works. You're insistence on shaping the article to be something that goes out to shed light on an issue is the definition of soapboxing (]) and violates the neutral point of view policy (]). You cannot IAR the verifiability policy, you cannot IAR the NPOV policy. Our opinions and individual, original ''interpretative'' assessments of primary sources have no place in the article. It is tedious and frankly frustrating that no matter how many times this is explained to you, ''you'' don't seem to get it. If you cannot understand it is absolutely out of line to write an article specifically to support one's point of views, to ignore basic and foundational policy because it doesn't allow an article to be written to support your point of view, or you continue to refuse to understand the basic sourcing and writing policies, then writing Misplaced Pages articles is probably not the place for you. ~Cheers, ]]] 19:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
:::I still believe your stubbornness is in violation of the IAR spirit: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Understanding_IAR This page in a nutshell: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it. Pls tell me how you have performed IAR at all in this article.] (]) 19:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
::::Tell me how ignoring the NPOV and verification policies at all helps the article? ]: "does not prevent the enforcement of certain policies", "mean that every action is justifiable", "does not mean there is necessarily an exception to every rule". ~Cheers, ]]] 19:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::You are quoting another essay against my essay. There are five essays on IAR. How come a little bit of exception on the Runtime columns and The Mummy violate the improvement to Misplaced Pages at all? We have given a full accounting of the Communist argument here in terms of why they think the censorship is necessary. Isn't that NPOV enough?] (]) 19:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::No, there's no such thing as "this section is neutral so we can let this other section be skewed". The entire article has to be neutral. Every single sentence of it. It has been explained. The runtime columns and the inclusion of ''The Mummy'' or any other film without a secondary sources violates the verifiability policy and the policy against original research. Violating these has absolutely no merit for the article or the encyclopedia in general. There is no argument in the world strong enough to warrant breaking those two policies. ~Cheers, ]]] 20:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Is there any dispute resolution channel we could go to, if you are not hesitant in participating? ] (]) 20:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Sure, start something at ]. But the fact of the matter is that standing consensus on this page is against you. ~Cheers, ]]] 20:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::I think it's ] not DNR. Plus, we should use ]. We don't have enough contributors to begin with. Not to mention consensus could change over time. Since you are so good at policy and this touches on IAR, could you please initiate the resolution? Many thanks. ] (]) 20:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::My bad. And I will not agree to anything at mediation because it is a ''last'' step. We cannot go there without pursuing other channels. Additionally, consensus was formed, like, a month ago at most, amongst at least five editors. And, seriously, IAR is not the be all end all rule. ~Cheers, ]]] 20:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::I have filed the DRN request.] (]) 21:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::Not sure if I should add further response to the DRN request regarding me being accused of "tendentiousness". I think my editing histories on the pages of ] and ] have all smacked of neutrality, including both sides of the story. The only bias I do have is "the list of edited films" should be complete with more information, but not indiscrminiate. I didn't advocate to add those 54 old films banned by ] to make further points.] (]) 16:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::DRN won't hear anything about editor behavior, it's a noticeboard for content. If you want to make a complaint about my comment, you'd have to go to another noticeboard. ~Cheers, ]]] 16:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::My complaint is "content". Plus, I don't think there could be concurrent disputes filed in two separate places. ] (]) 16:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The complaint that I've unfairly assessed your editing behavior isn't a content dispute, it's an editor behavior dispute. Technically, I guess, you can have concurrent discussions, seeing as they're technically different disputes. ~Cheers, ]]] 17:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


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

::: 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)
{{ping|TenTonParasol}}, I had made the tables and section collapsible, because as you guys seduced me to look at scholarly materials, I realized there was also film censorship in ] back in its colony days. If we are not creating new pages to solely dedicate to ROC or HK, wouldn't the collapse help readers jump easier to different subsections easier? Scrolling the mouse isn't the most efficient way to browse the page. The current list is definitely not INDISCRIMINATE, because there were hundreds of more older films, each of which doesn't have a separate page like that of ], censored according to the books. I don't have much more interests in keeping doing this. You do what you have to do.] (]) 02:33, 5 July 2017 (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)
:To answer regarding collapsible, to jump down the page, that's what the table of contents is for, jumping between sections, and like, it's just not done to collapse an entire section in article space? The collapsible just makes it ''harder'' to navigate because content is hidden. The article isn't even overly long, and it has a lot of section headers dividing the content into easily navigable chunks. Longer articles don't have collapsed sections, see: ], ], ].
*::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)
:I don't understand what you're trying to to say regarding indiscriminate. And movies having their own independent articles doesn't seem at all related to arguments of inclusion and INDISCRIMINATE at all right now. If you're saying the article could potentially be hundreds and hundreds of films, and that the current criteria is leaving things out, then an inclusion criteria should be discussed. Should this article require that a film have its own article, much in the way that alumni sections on schools require? Should this article require that a specific rationale for censorship or banning be included? It's also a misunderstanding of why I have brought up INDISCRIMINATE in the first place. It is said that it is indiscriminate to allow all films edited for any reason for release in China, including those that would not fall under a general and traditional definition of censorship.
*::: The parent article would be ] not Taiwan under Japanese rule. ] (]) 18:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
:And I don't understand what you mean by "I don't have much more interest in keeping doing this"? What are you telling me to do? ~Cheers, ]]] 03:11, 5 July 2017 (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)
== Copyright problem removed ==
*:::::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)
] Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, ''unless'' it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see ] if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or ] if you are.)


* To '''TenTonParasol''',
For ], we cannot accept ] text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of ''information'', and, if allowed under ], may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and ] properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original ''or'' ] from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our ] for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations '''very seriously''', and persistent violators '''will''' be ] from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. <!-- Template:Cclean --> — ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 14:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
: ] 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 ==
:{{ul|Diannaa}}, can you please explain an example of a copyright issue? Was it content in a prose section or from one of the list sections? Since there is still a lot of content and related references, I can't tell what actually changed. Pinging {{ul|TenTonParasol}} since she worked on the article more closely than I did. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 15:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
::As I have responded on my talk page: I have a journalism degree and of course know the importance of paraphrasing to avoid plagiarism charges. But it's @TenTonParasol: who back on June 12 stressed I could avoid original research in giving reasoning of the censored scenes by simply "repeating what a reliable, published source has stated themselves" that now has landed me in trouble. If people are observant, they would see I have given all inline citations to the extent possible. But of course I am not a master at this Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Please rewrite to the extent you are available. This includes the history section. That page needs more diverse contributors anyways. I'll just maintain the timeline of the censorship process and hopefully keep updating the list. ROC actually adopted the age-based rating system back in 1983 as I did some original research by reaching out to the experts. Thank you so much.] (]) 15:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
:::I did not mean copy and paste from the article. I assumed you at least understood basic Misplaced Pages policies regarding copying from sources, or that your journalism degree would've understood not to literally copy exactly what a source says and how to write from sources. ~Cheers, ]]] 15:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
::::It's your exact words! When you have such a pet peeve regarding what films are worthy of the censorship list, I did not want to disobey you. Instead of finger-pointing, why don't you rewrite the reasoning and give the inline citations again? If I have the right tools to do it instead of performing manual labor all over again, I am happy to do it. Now that is called leadership! But it seems like I can't access the un-restorable content to copy and paste the citations.] (]) 16:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::Lovely that you assume I'm NOT going line by line out of these revisions. And like, you pointed at me first, I'm just defending myself. I just assumed you had basic competence, because, as you said and clearly list on your user page, you have a journalism degree. Erik, I'm looking at the revision history and it looks like that content flagged was information out of the notes column on the banned and censored lists. I assume a lot of the intermediate edits have changed visibility for having the copyrighted content ''on'' them, rather than they introduced copyrighted material. I'm going to attempt to readd them back in, sufficiently. ~Cheers, ]]] 16:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::No need to do personal attacks on my competence. I was just pointing out your style. The other times when I don't feel being bossed around by you, I paraphrased or summarized pretty well. It's the earlier history section which requires scholarly research to bring in the censorship history for PRC during the 1949-1992 that is more troubling. I could at least admit that, but I did give inline citations usually at the end of the text. I also think removing the country of origin for the film list could be a good idea. The PRC censorship is for every movie. It's not country-specific.] (]) 16:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::::It's just silly to say that you can't edit effectively specifically because I said something, and it feels to me like you're trying to pass off the copyright violation as my fault. At any rate, I restored as much as I could, properly. As far as country of origin, I added it because I felt it would give proper context as to whether the film in question was a foreign production or a Chinese production. It isn't an attempt to indicate that censorship only affects certain countries. And that's tangential to this particular section, open up a new section and leave this for copyright? ~Cheers, ]]] 19:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|Erik}} The article appeared on the bot report for additions that came from the book '''' by Yingjin Zhang. Investigating, I found around twenty other copyright violations. For example the material from was copied in its entirety, except for the final sentence about bootleg copies. Most of the copyvio material was added on July 4 but some was added as long ago as June 13. — ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 19:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
:::Thanks. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 19:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Diannaa}}I don't recall copying from Artists, Cadres, and Audiences: Chinese Socialist Cinema. I only lifted (1) A Companion to Chinese Cinema and (2) Encyclopedia of Chinese Film. The WB article was not copied in its entirety. Only the 2nd thru 4th paragraphs to show the reasoning of the ban, since other editors demanded reasoning. But I have learned my lesson that even inline citation is not enough. Is there a way to see the bot report so that I could rewrite and fix them more efficiently? Thank you so much for your time and consideration. ] (]) 19:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
::::The book ''Artists, Cadres, and Audiences: Chinese Socialist Cinema'' and the ''Encyclopedia of Chinese Film'' have an author in common (Yingjin Zhang) so I have to assume the material that triggered the bot at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444355994.ch3 is also present in the Encyclopedia. I can send you a copy of the article as it stood before I commenced the clean-up via email if you like. The bot reports themselves will be of limited use as they only contains a small fraction of the removed material. But there they are: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en/?id=29875005; https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en/?id=29874466. Click on the iThenticate links to view what the bot detected. — ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 20:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The article needs to be combed over again. I just found that the notes column for the ''Crimson Peak'' entry and at least the entire first sentence of ROC 1912 to 1949 were copied mostly exact out of the cited article. ~Cheers, ]]] 21:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


*I delete the ]. The reason takes long space, so I write here.
== Broken citations ==
: <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 ==
There are currently three broken citations in the article:
* 4. . ''National Central Library Gazette Online''. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
* 7. . ''Legislative Yuan''. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
* 17. . ''Republic of China Legislative Yuan''. Retrieved 3 July 2017.


* 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:
{{ping|Supermann}}, can you relocate working URLs for those three citations? ~Cheers, ]]] 21:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
: <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)
:Yes, Ma'am. Your wish is my command. I can do it, but I may need you to take a break for 10 min so that our edits don't get in conflict. The second and third one are broken because staffers from the Legislative Yuan told me they use a dynamic url system to pull up results for people's searches. I kept them there and found another primary source as a backup, because I want readers to know that the ly.gov.tw website of the Legislative Yuan is where they could verify those laws absent misinterpretation from secondary sources. The first broken link is not actually broken. It's from Taiwan's national library. At the very top of the page is the link to a pdf scan of the Chinese text of the law, but since I am not a techie, I don't know whether the actual PDF url would expire the same way as the Legislative Yuan ones, so I kept that link instead which would show when the law came into effect. But I guess that's too much primary source again. We could find more secondary sources hopefully.] (]) 22:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
:Replaced all the broken ly.gov.tw links with new ones from gaz.ncl.edu.tw.] (]) 01:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


== Major revision edition 3 ==
== Question about the History section ==


I plan to make massive changes as follows.
{{ping|Supermann}} I have a question about how you're determining statements like "In November 1948, the reference to the "Three Principles of the People" was dropped and "the interests of the ROC could not be offended" was added in an amendment", "four more amendments to the law ensued without revising the main criteria", "expanded the censorship criteria to include the following:", "Yet the law only formally dropped the censorship requirement until June 2015." The only citations on those statements is the text of the law, rather than a commentary noting what's different between them. Are you comparing the texts of the laws and determining the difference yourself? Comparing different texts and mapping the differences like that is, I'm sure, ] and ]. I've discussed similar with you on other topics. ~Cheers, ]]] 21:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
# The history section will be completely rewritten, keeping only the content closely related to the theme.
:Guilty as charged. By comparing the texts of the law exactly according to their timeline hosted on the government website, I could see the addition and subtractions in wording and avoid the copyright violations from using secondary sources. But I do see your point on OR and how secondary sources are preferred. I would suggest we find a secondary source asap to back up those observations of mine, because they are indeed accurate. The reason I am confident is that I saw some secondary sources first in Chinese to get inspiration, but I just couldn't find the original law to support them. Later on, as I was able to read the original text in primary sources, and got confirmation from the librarian from Tainwan's national library via email, I was able to point out the age-based rating system started in 1983 not 1994 nor 1988 as I had originally written.] (]) 22:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
# 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)
== RfC about the runtime columns ==
::{{ping|142.112.236.29}} I'll see it. But fix what?--]※] 19:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
{{rfc|soc|media|pol|hist|proj|rfcid=425F43B}}


===Update===
Not sure if I am opening the ], but should the ] contain two runtime columns as seen here at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Film_censorship_in_China&oldid=785341359 to provide a quantitative approach to document film censorship? The history of the debate can be seen in the ] above. Basically, my opponent(s) from above and at DRN (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Film_censorship_in_China.23Runtime_columns) says no changes: no runtime columns, additions to "List of edited films" firmly supported by secondary sources, and any significant runtime differences noted in the existing notes column with contextualization and sourcing. Whereas, I agree mostly except for the addition of the columns, since we don't have enough textual analysis to provide further contextualization due to primarily budget cuts to the main journalism industry. At least 50+ films can't make it to the list because we can't find secondary sources other than ]. Victims include ], ], ], ], etc. It's illegal now to watch any movie whose runtime is longer than the one approved by censor. Basically by supporting me, you support making this page the last sanctuary and historian of censored films. ] (]) 17:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
*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 ==
===Survey===
* '''Support''' ], a reliable secondary source in Chinese runtimes, has already pit western runtime against domestic one. This is something that the other editor(s) just don't seem to get. Therefore, to say that it's not sourced, is simply inaccurate. If anyone needs a screen shot of the secondary source because they can't read Chinese or perform a mathematical search on the runtime, pls let me know. I am not righting any wrongs here, since I know the Misplaced Pages and the West's unwillingness and inability. I personally have never protested on streets using violence. But I do think what I advocate would provide encyclopedic values. This is just a simple documentation project. Please look back at the text of the article page and how it has had NPOV throughout. ] (]) 18:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
*:I am not saying that the ''runtime figure itself'' is unsourced. I'm saying that the deduction "It is censored" is unsourced. ~Cheers, ]]] 18:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
*::Do you deny it's illegal for Chinese citizens to watch complete version of movies because of the SAPPRFT June notice? If not, then I don't know why we keep debating this. At a minimum, that's censorship right there. ] (]) 19:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
*:::I maintain whether or not those films that are edited for reasons other than state censorship but are affected by the June notice should be included is a separate issue and has yet to be properly discussed. But, this RfC is not the place to discuss them. We keep debating this because I maintain that inclusion ought to be firmly on secondary sources and that saying "there's a runtime difference, so we ourselves can deduce it's censorship without need for a secondary source" is inappropriate. I will not be discussing with you directly this matter any more, except perhaps to open an ANI request because of your repeated attempts to ] regarding secondary sources and ]. I have repeatedly stated my position and at this point we're just talking past each other. The RfC will run its course, and anything I have to say on the matter is all over this page, at the DRN, and in my oppose below. ~Cheers, ]]] 19:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per the previous discussions on this page and per my comments at the DRN between myself and Supermann. As I stated, usage of these runtime columns was used in the place of secondary sourcing. It is entirely inappropriate to place these two runtimes next to each other and then claim that a film warrants inclusion on "List of edited films" because the runtimes do not match. It is original research because editors are speculating on the reason for that runtime difference in the absence of solid secondary sourcing. The core policies of Misplaced Pages are extremely clear: content must be based on secondary sourcing. This has been stated numerous times on this page and at the DRN. It is a shame that films Supermann believes are victims of censorship cannot make it onto the list due to lack of secondary sourcing, and it is sad that modern media journalism is ostensibly experiencing a decline—however, these two things have no basis on how we should proceed. We should not, not here, not on any article, include content on the basis of our personal interpretation, personal conclusions, and personal research. These runtime columns are an attempt to reinstate original research and an attempt to circumvent secondary sourcing policies. The particular RfC introduction itself contains soapboxing, and the position advanced in the RfC is also sopaboxing: ignore secondary policies to ] of a state body. While admirable, it is entirely inappropriate on Misplaced Pages. At this rate, Supermann, you are being disruptive not only on this article, but across multiple articles with your refusal to accept secondary sourcing policies in an attempt to advance a crusade. Find a source that says the film experienced state censorship. ~Cheers, ]]] 18:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Per the previous discussion and the DRN. The are plenty of other places on the internet where this axe can be ground. It does not belong on WikiP. ]&#124;] 19:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
::Pls do enlighten me where other places on the Internet I could go next. Maybe ultimately, that's where I should go and stop maintaining this page.] (]) 20:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' This proposal is very misguided from the beginning. {{tq|Basically by supporting me, you support making this page the last sanctuary and historian of censored films.}}, {{tq|the West's unwillingness and inability}} these non-encyclopedic remarks are textbook examples of ]. It has continued to be disregarded despite of being pointed out directly by multiple experienced editors. Any claims has to be supported by reliable secondary source, it is not optional. And user-generated speculations in ] is by no means a form of reliable source. Differential in regional runtimes are addressed in individual articles, not here. This is purely based on policies regarding manual of style, agreed by consensus. ]] 20:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
::To clarify, I didn't, haven't and will not cite any anonymous user-generated speculations from Douban. China Film Insider could do that and then we could cite China Film Insider. The only thing I cite from Douban is runtime. All the arguments from the Communist Party have been well documented to make the page neutral, regardless of my so-called soapboxing. I respect experienced editors, but if they don't educate themselves with latest facts on the ground, how could they convince me other than making me feel like this is just another authoritarian place where IAR was not once followed? thanks. ] (]) 20:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
:::: Again, you are in the wrong place. I understand your point, if information are inaccessible due to the political environment, how can these information be ]? Again, unfortunately ] is not an option, as have been stated over and over again. I am sure you have read ] by now, but ]. ]] 20:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::But the runtime information is accessible and verifiable. Are you saying the The Mummy runtime at https://movie.douban.com/subject/20451290/ is not verifiable? This is a dedicated movie page, not the other anonymous subpost that you thought I relied on, which I assumed is at https://movie.douban.com/subject/20451290/questions/746107/?from=subject. I am still trying to reconcile our disconnected differences.] (]) 21:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
:::: This is turning into ]. You know by now that every editor here including myself are referring to ''verifiable source that describes censorship''. Nothing to do with runtime, which belongs in individual articles. ]] 21:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::So what's your stance on the June 1 SAPPRFT notice then that even the other editors acknowledged hasn't been fully properly discussed? Is it really a separate issue that has no place here? ] (]) 21:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' As I have stated before, the use of runtime columns <u>to prove</u> that this much length was <u>censored</u>, is Original Research, a deduction of one editor, and not information based on a source. IF the information in a secondary source states that a certain runtime was the result of <u>censorship</u> then I have no problem including the information on runtime parenthetically (as the runtime itself is NOT the point. Dedicating a column to prove this is so in all these cases is not in line with Misplaced Pages policy. Note also, that I have been present in a room where union members of Cinema Owners of Athens (Greece) were butchering copies of films so that "they are acceptable" and it had absolutely nothing to do with any demand from a censor. Actually this was several years after the Greek dictatorship 1967-1974 and "no censhorship" was the established policy. I can imagine a situation in China (where censorship exists very much) where scenes are cut off of films because "they may not be acceptable", before any censor gets to them. Then again it may be as you think it is. But IT MAY or it MAY NOT be so in all the cases. You are insisting on this issue for a while now, and here again whithout any new arguments, without any new sources, and we have to keep repeating the very same things. This is soapboxing, it is tiring and it is becoming disruptive. ] <small>]</small> 20:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
::You clearly have continued to choose to ignore the June 1 notice from SAPPRFT. I urge all those oppose read the notice first before they feel overwhelmed.] (]) 20:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
:::I don't choose to ignore anything, clearly or unclearly. You choose to ignore everyone else here. ] <small>]</small> 20:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' We are covering old ground here. The consensus was clear at the previous discussion. Nobody has a problem with quantifying the cuts, but rather with how those conclusions are reached. Comparing runtimes is not acceptable because the difference in film lengths may be due to several different reasons. If you can produce a source which explicitly states "8 minutes were cut" then obviously that can be included. ] (]) 00:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
::It's your freedom of speech not to address the June 1 notice from SAPPRFT. But I just want to remind every opposition that this project/page was created on June 12 in response to the June 1 notice. Otherwise I wouldn't have done it. Again, even TenTonParasol agrees this angle hasn't been thoroughly discussed, not even on ]. People just jump to conclusion without seeing the overarching censoring climate.] (]) 01:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
:::Quite on the contrary, people here avoid jumping to conclusions. Combining the June 1 notice from SAPPRFT with the runtime information and jumping to conclusions is what you do and people do not agree with, not per freedom of speech, but per Misplaced Pages policy. ] <small>]</small> 13:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Hoverfish, Betty Logan, et al. The previous consensus was clear enough. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 11:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


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)
=== Discussion ===
I have placed neutral notices of this RfC at ] and ]. ~Cheers, ]]] 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
:The DRN had closed prematurely since I never got to add a third stmt. So it's apparently not resolved. Moderator suggested RfC as a binding solution. I don't know what I'm getting myself into, but I'm willing to go through the additional process to see if ] could ever be really used.] (]) 19:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
::The DRN wasn't closed prematurely. You just failed to respond with 48 hours, which, per the rules we were instructed to read before beginning the DRN, we were told to do. ~Cheers, ]]] 19:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
:::I monitored the DRN daily, but I wasn't pinged about another third stmt from the moderator. Therefore, I thought you were still modifying your second statement, but I was already expecting a moderation result. We should definitely thoroughly discuss the June 1 notice using this opportunity. Otherwise, I don't think the moderator did much other than suggesting RfC. ] (]) 19:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
In the interest of transparency, I note that Supermann has opened a Request for Mediation, ], related to this RfC between myself and himself. I have rejected the request on the grounds that this RfC remains open and that such formal mediation is voluntary. ~Cheers, ]]] 18:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
:Good grief. Supermann will eventually run out of places to ]. I know that the editor was made aware of ] at some point but, since they don't seem to have read it - or if they have they haven't comprehended it - I have posted the link again. ]&#124;] 20:01, 1 August 2017 (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: