Talk:City Without Baseball

Nudity

I've removed some original research, and excess discussion about nudity and "private parts" (which was previously "pubic hair, penis and testicles"). Mention of the nudity is fine, especially if it's drawn media attention, but we don't need a detailed description of nude scenes, or excessive mentions of other films that feature nudity. There is a separate article at Nudity in film.--BelovedFreak 11:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have again reverted the addition of this material, by User:Tai kit and now anonymous editors User:110.164.166.200 and User:110.164.166.130. Very similar problems have been introduced to several articles including [1], [2], [3], [4], but this article is the one that's been receiving most attention in recent days. Some of the edits are problematic due to the fact there is no source, eg. " the first mainstream Indian film to feature full-frontal adult male and female nudity. " could be a relevant inclusion, but needs a source. Other edits are problematic because they seem to be focusing unduly on elaborate description of genitals, and providing excessive information about other films featuring nudity, that should be kept to the articles about those films. With regards to this article, I am removing the information because:

1. It is introducing a large a mount of unsourced material. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I believe the following material is likely to be challenged:
   1. "The film attracted considerable attention in the Hong Kong media, as the members of the Hong Kong National Baseball Team [...] agreed to full-frontal nudity in several scenes" - I am challenging this because the same claim was added to many other articles and seems to be a stock phrase used by the original author. If it attracted considerable attention in the media for nudity, or anything else, lets see some references. I personally don't have any special access to Hong Kong media, a quick search in google news didn't turn up anything, so perhaps User:Tai kit can help there.
   2. "he was much more reluctant than the other Chinese boys to expose his private parts on film because of the small size of his genitals, and that he had felt very embarrassed about it. But he says that during filming, he soon became very relaxed and even comfortable about it and realized that, actually, his genitals were larger than anyone else on the team." - I think this is too much information really, but at the very least it needs a reference to this interview. Without a citation to a reliable source, this is a BLP concern as it is contentious information about a living person.
2. There is information that I believe is unnecessary detail for a Wikipedia article:
   1. "each Chinese young man turns around to face the camera, with each of their naked bodies revealed, including their genitals"
   2. "his nakedness is particularly graphic with his body well lit, revealing his private parts in detail"
   3. "This film is one of a growing number of instances of Chinese adult males willingly showing their genitals on screen, together with the film..." followed by a long list of films. This is again, unsourced, it's irrelevant to this film to have a long list of other films featuring nudity, such detail would more properly belong in a general article like nudity in film, and unless there is a reliable source listing these films, it's original research.
3. There is original research:
   1. "This is a metaphor for the life revelations to follow."
   2. "...whose character exposition will be the greatest."

Any thoughts, comments, suggestions would be appreciated whether from User:Tai kit, User:110.164.166.200, User:110.164.166.130 or anyone else.--BelovedFreak 09:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wholly agree with the removals and with your reasonings why. While Wikipedia is not censored, it also isn't for salacious gossip and personal opinion, nor for excessive commentary on how detailed someone's penis is on screen. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

BelovedFreak: Thank you for your comments about the City Without Baseball page, which I originally created. The information I had included was not from my research, but it was from a printed source not on the internet. However, all the information that I supplied is factually correct, and if you would care to review the above film, you will find that all the information I provided is entirely correct.

AnmaFinotera: As for whether the inclusion of truthful and accurate information that I provided is 'salacious gossip', it does appear to be a matter of personal conjecture. What is pretty incontravertible, however, was that it wasn't merely a matter my 'personal opinion', but from secondary sources (not from the internet). In the absence of any untrue and/or defamatory information, the test should be one of relevance. Many friends and acquaintances who have seen the film say that the information is true, and believe that the information I supplied is also relevant and non-defamatory.

I restored information which I thought had been vandalised by other users from the page I originally created. But some of the wording, such as "and realized that, actually, his genitals were larger than anyone else on the team" was not mine, and I included in error when restoring my original material, for which I apologise. While I accept that this was an error on my part, I believe that the inclusion of the material that I originally entered, and was attempting to restore from what I had thought was an act of vandalism, was and is relevant and non-defamatory, and can be seen to be correct.

As to AnmaFinotera's query elsewhere about whether I'm a "sock puppet" or have links to people apparently in Thailand who are busily trying to vandalise my City Without Baseball page: I don't know anyone in that country, and am neither working in cahoots with anyone else, anywhere, nor do I have either the technical ability, the interest or the inclination to waste my time or anyone else's by setting up multiple user accounts across the world to vandalise my own Wikipedia page! Perhaps you could have sent me a private message instead, rather than sending Wikipedia administrators on a time-consuming and ultimately fruitless wild goose chase. Can I expect to receive an apology from you when your untrue and hurtful claims, which appear to be motivated by an attempt to undermine me, prove to be baseless? Tai kit (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Printed sources are fine, but they still need to be cited. Unfortunately, we can't take your many friends and acquaintances' word for it. I don't know why you would think that the removal of information was vandalism since the editors removing the information used clear edit summaries and attempted to discuss the issues on your talkpage. That you did not participate in discussions until now was your choice. You have continued to insert this material on this article and others. I won't detail the issues any more as they are listed above.

If you can cite reliable secondary sources (on or offline) that discuss the fact that this film attracted media attention for it's graphic nudity, then that's fine. However, sources or not, details like "his body is well-lit, exposing his pubic hair, testicles and a swaying penis with a long, V-shaped foreskin (the lighting revealing the size and shape of the glans penis beneath...)" are not really what we're looking for.

User:110.164.249.246, in their only edit, added the unsourced information about the actor's penis size that violate WP:BLP. This is a very similar IP address to the ones that were later readding the material originally added by you (after you'd received 3 warnings in a row for adding unsourced material). Are you saying that they are not you?--BelovedFreak 20:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying precisely that. In restoring my own material, I inadvertently included material from another contributor, about comments that Ron Heung had allegedly made about the 'size' of his penis compared to the other actors appearing in the film (in fact, the contributor could well be correct in attributing those remarks to Heung, as they do appear to be in line with the actor's already broadcast remarks), but nevertheless, I have already apologised for having unwittingly included that contributor's text when attempting to reverse what I had thought was vandalism to my article. The comments of the actor that I had earlier included were given in television and other media interviews with the actor, and others on the official DVD of the film.

Returning to the subject of your questioning whether I use IP addresses based in Thailand, I want to make very clear that I do not. Like many users, I am not always based in the same physical location, and so therefore do have more than one LOCAL IP address. I do not, however, have any access, whatsoever, to any IP address/addresses in Thailand, nor would I know how to go about acquiring any. Perhaps needless to say in normal circumstances, but I will do so, as you appear to be continuing to question my integrity, I also have no interest in somehow 'manipulating' the accounts of others living in Thailand, or anywhere else! So those IP addresses have absolutely no connection with me. Tai kit (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Tai Kit

hello. I am tai kit. 2600:1700:254F:6C10:81F5:8638:BA54:3465 (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2017

Shouldn't we at least add the cast information? As the agent of Thomas Price, I need to feature him since his name is mentioned on the poster. Thanks, BlissMedia (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Train2104 (t • c) 04:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)