This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Supermann (talk | contribs) at 14:58, 14 June 2017 (→Changes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:58, 14 June 2017 by Supermann (talk | contribs) (→Changes)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | China Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Film: Chinese Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Reasoning column
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, TenTonParasol 03:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's certainly ideal to include that, but it would involve WP:OR, 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. Supermann (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 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. Supermann (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 20:16, 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. Supermann (talk) 19:38, 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, TenTonParasol 18:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Lost City of Z & Dangal
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, TenTonParasol 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? Supermann (talk) 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 Bold, Revert, Discuss, 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, TenTonParasol 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.Supermann (talk) 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. Supermann (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- A studio can make a statement without having a website? And I would like to warn you about WP:CIVILITY and WP:PERSONALATTACK. 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 I've posted a neutral notice to WikiProject Film. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I yield to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Chinese cinema task force. 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.Supermann (talk) 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.Supermann (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 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, User:Alex Shih on the taskforce is still active. But I could be wrong. Supermann (talk) 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. Supermann (talk) 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 WP:BRD, 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 WP:CALC. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermann (talk • contribs) 03:13, 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 WP:BRD, 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 WP:CALC. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:51, 13 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, TenTonParasol 22:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- A studio can make a statement without having a website? And I would like to warn you about WP:CIVILITY and WP:PERSONALATTACK. 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 I've posted a neutral notice to WikiProject Film. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:20, 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 Bold, Revert, Discuss, 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, TenTonParasol 22:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
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 original research, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Erik (talk | contrib) 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.Supermann (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
article completely off
At first glance the article has imho 2 major problems:
- 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 List of banned films. In any case the article needs a complete overhaul based on some background research and better sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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? Erik (talk | contrib) 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.Supermann (talk) 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 WP:OWNERSHIP, remind you again about WP:SOAPBOXING 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, TenTonParasol 16:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- @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, TenTonParasol 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.--Kmhkmh (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 22:05, 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.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:48, 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.Supermann (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@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.--Kmhkmh (talk) 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.Supermann (talk) 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.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:36, 14 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.Supermann (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Changes
Hoverfish, Supermann, 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. Erik (talk | contrib) 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. Supermann (talk) 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, common selection criteria 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. TenTonParasol, you thanked my edits. I assume this means you support the edits in their entirety? Anything to adjust? Erik (talk | contrib) 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.Supermann (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Guidelines are not to be shrugged off. It is rooted in the policy of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "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. Erik (talk | contrib) 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, TenTonParasol 17:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, a quick search engine test 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. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you are citing policy, then I'll cite policy too. Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not censored 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.Supermann (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) 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, TenTonParasol 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 WP:CIVILITY and WP:PERSONALATTACK and WP:OWNERSHIP. Also, this is real cute.
- At any rate, I'll see if I can find anything to for the citation you're talking about. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 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.Supermann (talk) 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 MOS:EMBED#List of works and timelines, " 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. Erik (talk | contrib) 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."Misplaced Pages:Assume the assumption of good faithYour edits in removing the runtime are too massive to be ignored.Supermann (talk) 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 ownership of the article 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 WP:ANI. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:41, 14 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."Misplaced Pages:Assume the assumption of good faithYour edits in removing the runtime are too massive to be ignored.Supermann (talk) 02:12, 14 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 MOS:EMBED#List of works and timelines, " 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. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:35, 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.Supermann (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, a quick search engine test 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. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:48, 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, TenTonParasol 17:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Guidelines are not to be shrugged off. It is rooted in the policy of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "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. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:34, 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.Supermann (talk) 17:27, 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, common selection criteria 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. TenTonParasol, you thanked my edits. I assume this means you support the edits in their entirety? Anything to adjust? Erik (talk | contrib) 17:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I've posted a neutral notice at WT:FILM for other editors to review the changes made. Erik (talk | contrib) 02:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- I wasn't the first one to pull up AGF. The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Chinese cinema task force 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.Supermann (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have requested formal mediation, since this dispute is a more difficult dispute. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_China should also have a chance to chime in before things could get out of hand. Supermann (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) 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 lay off the personal attacks and be civil. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 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. DORC (talk) 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. Erik (talk | contrib) 11:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Kmhkmh, your thoughts on the changes made? Erik (talk | contrib) 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, 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 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 Kmhkmh, without deleting the runtime columns and simplifying the release dates. We just need better coordination with editors on the List of banned films. Adding scholarly literature is also welcome.Supermann (talk) 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. Erik (talk | contrib) 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.
- 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. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:44, 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, 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 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 Kmhkmh, without deleting the runtime columns and simplifying the release dates. We just need better coordination with editors on the List of banned films. Adding scholarly literature is also welcome.Supermann (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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, TenTonParasol 14:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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? Supermann (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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, TenTonParasol 14:23, 14 June 2017 (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 List of banned films 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, TenTonParasol 14:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't mind that. Once again, I would love to compromise.Supermann (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)