Talk:Battlefield Earth (film): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:12, 8 October 2010 editLuftWaffle0 (talk \| contribs)95 edits →Strange criticism source: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:17, 8 October 2010 edit undoCirt (talk \| contribs)199,086 edits →Strange criticism source: reNext edit →
Line 62:		Line 62:

	This source was added by Cirt. ] (]) 21:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)		This source was added by Cirt. ] (]) 21:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
			:It is used as a part of ''commentary'', nothing more than that. -- ''']''' (]) 21:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:17, 8 October 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battlefield Earth (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Battlefield Earth (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 12, 2008.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 19, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
June 20, 2007	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
February 14, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: British / American

	Film portal This 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
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article has an archived peer review.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Scientology Mid‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Science Fiction Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed change

Reverting this diff

Rationale: I find this sentence non compliant with WP:NPOV:

It was reported that the merchandising revenues would be passed on to the Scientology-linked "social betterment" groups Narconon and Applied Scholastics, with movie-related sales of the book funding the marketing of Hubbard's fiction books and the L. Ron Hubbard Writers of the Future contest.

Why? Because describing Narconon and Applied Scholastics as "social betterment" (quotes included) is either promoting them as betterment organizations (which does not comply with NPOV) or ridiculing their position sarcastically (which does not comply with NPOV either). The edit I made was WP:BOLD, in the sense that it gave no POV and described the groups for what they actually do. Narconon provides drug rehabilitation programs based on Hubbard's writtings and Applied Scholastics promotes Hubbard's Study Tech. To be honest, I was baffled to see my edit reverted for being "POV". > RUL3R_>vandalism 04:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That was an unsourced change. It was also POV because it relied solely on how the organizations describe themselves. Cirt (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I can source it. And the paragraph needs a short description of both, as any reader might ponder what those are. And how else can it be described without losing the topic discussed? I think "a drug rehabilitation program based on Hubbard's writings" is a sufficiently brief, neutral description of Narconon, and "a group aimed to promote Hubbard's Study Tech" is the same for Applied Scholastics. These two are not the topic of this article, it is not necessary to copy the whole controversies section. > RUL3R_>vandalism 05:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is disputed if it is regarded by a preponderance of independent secondary sources as being known primarily as a "drug rehabilitation", rather than as a front organization for Scientology, or both, etc. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I checked the secondary source at the end of the sentence, which confirms the change made by RUL3R (talk · contribs). My mistake. Sorry about that, my apologies, Cirt (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you > RUL3R_>vandalism 08:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Italics in the article head

Removed by Rich on AWB, readded by Cirt, and I removed it again. Cirt added it sometime in April (I just went digging) with an edit summary of "ital". I am completely against the use of this template anywhere, especially on a featured article when the RFC turned up a no-consensus (that said, I !voted in said RFC). Thought to bring it here. Tbh, I didn't even realize it was used here until I hard-refreshed the title page. --Izno (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What RFC? Link please? -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a link on Template:Italic title right at the top. The RFC took place at Template talk:Italic title#RFC: Should this be used?. --Izno (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay!!! Thank you very much!!! No worries!!! -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange criticism source

Who is Lisa Brandt and why should her review in an almost completely unknown celebrity gossip book be a part of this article? Her "review" is not only childish and unfunny, but it seems from the gist of the rest of the article that it's not even true, with regards to the influence of Scientology on the film. You might as well be quoting a random unknown blog. There are two reviews of the mentioned book on Amazon, at least one of which is quite obviously written by the author herself (Lisa B from Canada, who praises the author's genius. The other review is equally glowing and also originates from Canada, and is the only review by that reviewer).

This source was added here by Cirt. LuftWaffle0 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It is used as a part of commentary, nothing more than that. -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories: