Talk:Film censorship in China/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 Wikipedia: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 [number of minutes] 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)

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. Wikipedia 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) ^{(ping me)} 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)

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) ^{(ping me)} 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) ^{(ping me)} 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) ^{(ping me)} 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) ^{(ping me)} 17:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

If you are citing policy, then I'll cite policy too. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia 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, "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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) ^{(ping me)} 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."Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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)

I've posted a neutral notice at WT:FILM for other editors to review the changes made. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't the first one to pull up AGF. The Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia: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) ^{(ping me)} 11:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, your thoughts on the changes made? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 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) ^{(ping me)} 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.

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)

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 of a specific censored scene is important and verifiable, it can be mentioned in parenthesis in the notes along with a citation about the timing of the censored part -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 consensus has to be respected. Hoverfish Talk 21:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

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. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 15 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)

Responding here. Supermann, 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.

In the meanwhile, just to focus on The Mummy 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 consensus. Alex Shih^Talk 16:39, 14 June 2017 (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.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:08, 15 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) ^{(ping me)} 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)

@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)

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 Republic of China not Mainland China. They are two different governments until eventual re-unification. There is still supposed to be Chinese Civil War between the two. Supermann (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Banned films

A couple of banned films we can list here are Seven Years in Tibet and Kundun. A source for them is here. 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). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Cool, cool. I'm also slowing working my way through entries located at List of banned films. 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, TenTonParasol 14:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Another banned film is afaik Red Corner. 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.--Kmhkmh (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 20:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is a sourced explicitly mentioning the film being banned in china: [1]--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

A source on the illegality on pornography in China:[2]

And a recent Hongkong film banned in China: Ten_Years_(2015_film)--Kmhkmh (talk) 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. Supermann (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

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.ch (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong

@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 Hong Kong 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 The Life of Wu Xun, censored according to the books. I don't have much more interests in keeping doing this. You do what you have to do.Supermann (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2017 (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: George Washington, Cinema of the United States, Head VI.

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.

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, TenTonParasol 03:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

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 "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted 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 fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

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 TenTonParasol since she worked on the article more closely than I did. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 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 Wikipedia 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.Supermann (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not mean copy and paste from the article. I assumed you at least understood basic Wikipedia 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, TenTonParasol 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.Supermann (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 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.Supermann (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 19:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: The article appeared on the bot report for additions that came from the book Artists, Cadres, and Audiences: Chinese Socialist Cinema, 1949–1978 by Yingjin Zhang. Investigating, I found around twenty other copyright violations. For example the material from this article 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@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. Supermann (talk) 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 21:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about the History section

@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, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I've discussed similar with you on other topics. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

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.Supermann (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Broken citations

There are currently three broken citations in the article:

• 4. "Film Censorship Law of 1930". National Central Library Gazette Online. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
• 7. "Film Censorship Law of 1948". Legislative Yuan. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
• 17. "Film Law passed on May 22, 2015 & effective on June 10". Republic of China Legislative Yuan. Retrieved 3 July 2017.

@Supermann:, can you relocate working URLs for those three citations? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:44, 6 July 2017 (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.Supermann (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Replaced all the broken ly.gov.tw links with new ones from gaz.ncl.edu.tw.Supermann (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Runtime columns

Hello. I would like to call on the following 2017 active members:@Andrzejbanas:, @Benlisquare:, @CWH:, @DORC:, @Huaiwei:, @Lugnuts: and @Alex Shih: of the WP:WikiProject Film/Chinese cinema task force 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 @TenTonParasol:, @Erik:, @Hoverfish: and @Kmhkmh: are all for their removal. Exhausting discussions have been conducted among us and they still could not convince me.

Again, one column for theatrical runs in major film markets and another for runtime approved by SAPPRFT, sourced to either Douban.com or Maoyan.com in Chinese for consistency, because non-Chinese readers could still command/ctrl+f to look up the runtime for verification. WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources says citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. 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 WP:OR, 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 Wikipedia:Five pillars! And the truth on the censorship of The Mummy will eventually come out when the bluray is released.Supermann (talk) 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).

As I mentioned above, the "reasoning" is often unclear, disputed, or alleged, so I favor the "Notes" column.ch (talk) 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 WP:OR. The article shouldn't do that. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 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. Supermann (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, 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.ch (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 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.Supermann (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 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. Supermann (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 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.Supermann (talk) 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 WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 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, TenTonParasol 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. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 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.--Kmhkmh (talk) 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. Hoverfish Talk 22:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not doing soapboxing, but I want all the editors, @TenTonParasol: in particular, to know that today is the day that Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo died.Supermann (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

And how is that relevant to this article or this discussion? This is not a forum. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

People die from censorship in China. Cheers as you put it.Supermann (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 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 The Mummy (2017 film) 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 American Made attached to the end credits of The Mummy. When I invoked IAR, I meant not carte blanche. I mean let's not make Wikipedia 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.Supermann (talk) 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, WP:PRIMARY, states: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia, 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, TenTonParasol 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.Supermann (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 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? Supermann (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

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, TenTonParasol 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.Supermann (talk) 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 Wikipedia, how the verifiability policy (WP:VERIFY) 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 (WP:SOAPBOX) and violates the neutral point of view policy (WP:NPOV). 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 Wikipedia articles is probably not the place for you. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I still believe your stubbornness is in violation of the IAR spirit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Understanding_IAR This page in a nutshell: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Pls tell me how you have performed IAR at all in this article.Supermann (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Tell me how ignoring the NPOV and verification policies at all helps the article? Ignore all rules does not: "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, TenTonParasol 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 Wikipedia 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?Supermann (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 20:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there any dispute resolution channel we could go to, if you are not hesitant in participating? Supermann (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, start something at WP:DNR. But the fact of the matter is that standing consensus on this page is against you. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's WP:DRN not DNR. Plus, we should use Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. 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. Supermann (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 20:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I have filed the DRN request.Supermann (talk) 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 Liu Xiaobo and Embassy of China in Washington, D.C.#Street_Name_Controversy 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 Jiang Qing to make further points.Supermann (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 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. Supermann (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 17:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the runtime columns

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a snow consensus against the usage of runtime columns to document film-censorship.Winged Blades ^Godric 13:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Not sure if I am opening the pandora's box, but should the List of Edited Films contain two runtime columns as seen here at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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 Runtime column sections above. Basically, my opponent(s) from above and at DRN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Douban. Victims include The Mummy (2017 film), The November Man, Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (film), London Has Fallen, 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. Supermann (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Douban, 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 Wikipedia 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. Supermann (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 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. Supermann (talk) 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 WP:DONTGETIT regarding secondary sources and just never dropping the stick. 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, TenTonParasol 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 Wikipedia 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 right great wrongs of a state body. While admirable, it is entirely inappropriate on Wikipedia. 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, TenTonParasol 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. MarnetteD|Talk 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.Supermann (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposal is very misguided from the beginning. Basically by supporting me, you support making this page the last sanctuary and historian of censored films., the West's unwillingness and inability these non-encyclopedic remarks are textbook examples of soapbox. 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 Douban 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. Alex Shih^Talk 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. Supermann (talk) 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 verifiable? Again, unfortunately original research is not an option, as have been stated over and over again. I am sure you have read this essay by now, but decides to continue. Alex Shih^Talk 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.Supermann (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This is turning into disruptive editing. 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. Alex Shih^Talk 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? Supermann (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose As I have stated before, the use of runtime columns to prove that this much length was censored, 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 censorship 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 Wikipedia 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. Hoverfish Talk 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.Supermann (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't choose to ignore anything, clearly or unclearly. You choose to ignore everyone else here. Hoverfish Talk 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. Betty Logan (talk) 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. People just jump to conclusion without seeing the overarching censoring climate.Supermann (talk) 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 Wikipedia policy. Hoverfish Talk 13:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hoverfish, Betty Logan, et al. The previous consensus was clear enough. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I have placed neutral notices of this RfC at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film and Wikipedia:WikiProject China. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 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 WP:IAR could ever be really used.Supermann (talk) 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, TenTonParasol 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. Supermann (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency, I note that Supermann has opened a Request for Mediation, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Film Censorship in China, 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, TenTonParasol 18:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Good grief. Supermann will eventually run out of places to WP:FORUMSHOP. I know that the editor was made aware of what IAR does not mean 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. MarnetteD|Talk 20:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's wait for the RfC to run out then. Had the so-called consensus so far reflect the diversity of global readers or the interests of some half of Chinese population having dissent, I would not have resorted to mediation. For those who have kept attacking my conduct of being disruptive, they are trying to crush dissent just like the communists do. Here is a good essay that some choose to ignore: Wikipedia:You Can't Follow All The Rules, All The Time. As we wait for more diverse opinions, the R-rated Baby Driver has become the latest victim to state censor, according to social media account. As you find out, I apparently wasn't the first one to come up with the runtime analysis. Chinese are waking up to document this, except they still don't have the full wikipedia community behind their back. Supermann (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

References

People can do whatever original research, personal analysis, and speculation they want elsewhere. Wikipedia core policy is clear. There is your general continuing to soapbox and pushing of IAR above literally every other policy despite constant explanation, but frankly, it's your comment For those who have kept attacking my conduct of being disruptive, they are trying to crush dissent just like the communists do, I feel warranted opening up a grievance at WP:ANI sooner rather than later. This is not the first time you've made such a comment. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This constant threat is exactly what the IAR essay did not advocate. "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." It just so happens that the page itself is so neutral at this point. I have nothing to hide.Supermann (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Supermann, seems that the whole majority is against the proposal to add columns about runtime. What will you do about it? --George Ho (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I'll do nothing other than appealing to my opponent's senses. @CWH: is with me. @Kmhkmh: has no strong preference for or against me, last time I had checked. The Chinese runtime is a runtime approved by the censor SAPPRFT, regardless whether there was a commercial decision beforehand or not. Article 17 of the March 2017 film law is quite clear: Where the provisions of this law are complied with, release is approved, a 'film release permit' is awarded, and it is announced to the public. Article 20: Legal persons or other organizations producing films shall put the film release permit id in the film's opening sequence; Films that have not obtained a film release permit must not be distributed or screened, must not be transmitted through the internet, telecommunications networks, radio and television networks or other information networks; and must not be made into a/v products. With the June 1 notice from the same censor SAPPRFT that bans other runtime of the same film, how much clearer do you want me to be? Nobody should need to perform semantic gymnastics to realize there is absolutely no original research here. It is in this sense that I believe IAR should dispel any lingering notion of OR here.Supermann (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH, which has been pointed out to you multiple times: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Would either WP:NOTADVOCACY or WP:NOTFREESPEECH help more? --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope. I maintain it's not synth because as i had said, the runtime on Douban or any other secondary sources in Chinese that I have used is the censor approved runtime. This case is not that UN example where people performed semantic gymnastics. Again, the page itself is NPOV and thus no advocacy. I did not advocate anarchism or overthrowing the communist party either.Supermann (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

And @George Ho:, since you self-identify as gay, I hope you'll read the Obergefell v. Hodges case to understand what I have been doing. I'll refrain from further comments, since this feels like a witch hunt already.Supermann (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, your comments seriously continue to display a lack of understanding of SYNTH and ADVOCACY. Also, your comment to George Ho is grossly out of line, as is appealing to editors identities to get them to overlook core Wikipedia policies. This isn't a Witch hunt. It's just you're constantly refusing to understand core Wikipedia policies. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You were wrong. The Supreme Court case is not to get them to overlook the policies you prefer to cite. Instead, it's to get them to relook the other IAR policy right under their and your nose that they and you refuse to acknowledge in certain essay that they and you won't cite. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868. Yet it took 147 years and a 5 to 4 decision to work in Obergefell v. Hodges. Consensus could change. And I'm waiting for it. But there is simply not enough diverse opinion here because half of a billion Chinese don't even know what Wikipedia is thanks to the Communists' firewall. Supermann (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This is an extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You don't have a single support in the vote above, you have 6 oppose, and if I count all the other opinions in this discussion, one supports you, Kmhkmh you say "has no strong preference" but I do not see that this editor agrees at all with the runtime column, and there is also Erik, who did not agree but who did not take part in the vote. And you are waiting for the consensus to change??? You have been in every possible place to call for support and air the issue. So where is the cavalry? So let's wait forever and keep repeating the same things over and over, asking for mediations, claiming witch hunts and delivering various speaches. This is what Wikipedia is for, isn't it? Hoverfish Talk 02:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The cavalry didn't show up because half a billion Chinese don't even know what Wikipedia is. thanks to the censorship. They are not aware of the existence of this live debate. Only 500,000 of the other half showed up to Mack Horton's twitter and instagram after he taunted Sun Yang as drug cheat. You guys just have to understand China and what Chinese readers want from an encyclopedia. Btw, if it takes LGBT people that long to win their rights in America, I can definitely wait as long. I am not as hurried as you are to quash dissent. I wasn't even doing disruptive editing as you had hoped I would do. Sorry to disappoint you. And tonight I watching Miss Sloane. Truly inspirational. Supermann (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

References

I left you a message at your talk page, Supermann. --George Ho (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

And I have responded. Thanks and good night. Supermann (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - User:Supermann - I have had to comment at WP:ANI. The fact that this is now at WP:ANI is because you are going on at too much length about a topic where no one disagrees with you. We already know that there is movie censorship in China. Wikipedia is not the mechanism for you to publicize a campaign against Chinese movie censorship. Read the dead horse essay. Your horse won't carry you any further. Your horse is dead. Let someone bury it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bohemian Rhapsody and bare URLs

Can anyone please find reliable sources for "Bohemian Rhapsody" being banned in China, or somehow censored? Tony85poon (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I promised User:TenTonParasol that I won't edit the article, and that I should stick to the talk page. Can someone fix the two citations below please? They are only web links at the moment. They are directly relevant to "Ai Weiwei":

1. citation 142

2. citation 143

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBpmkMVqs_o&t=27m10s citation 96, Lan Yu, 2001, China. Please fix.

God bless Tony85poon (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added it and filled out the bare URLs. In the future, please add new discussions to the bottom of the page in a new section instead of adding onto old, closed discussions; please see WP:TALK. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

List of edited films

Would someone please find "the June 2017 notice from SAPPRFT bans the spread of so-called complete or uncut version" in original Chinese, thanks. Tony85poon (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Tony85poon A simple google search would turn up. http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2017-06/02/content_5199295.htm. Knock yourself out. Thx Supermann (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Why it was NOT vandalism

Supermann insisted that http://chinafilminsider.com/r-rated-films-in-china/ should be in the citations. That's a misconception. The name of this article describes the scope. The concept is that the Government censors these film and when people do something to play the film openly, there can be punishment. If a cinema consistently airs these films (unedited version straight from a foreign-country), the cinema's business would be under threat.

What the above citation really says is that the film-lengths got shortened. The cinema-owners want to make more profit. Even if the film is shorter, the Chinese people still like to watch it. That's not censorship. That's a commercial decision. I am not saying that your citation is not suitable for Wikipedia. Supermann's citation is suitable for the Cinema of China or zh:中国大陆电影#进口电影. This article is about a really specific controversial issue. Supermann's citation is out of the scope of the article. Tony85poon (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, it works to support the "Hacksaw Ridge" film. But it does not explain "Allied" good enough,

At the same time, censorship standards and criteria have been evolving in the interval: Saving Private Ryan was imported in its complete version in 1998, but the World War II-themed films, Allied and Hacksaw Ridge both fell afoul of Chinese censors last year

• World War II is not a reason of censorship;
• Graphic violence in Allied? I don't know;
• At least support it with some analysis + how the censored version is different than the uncensored version (Is it 5 seconds shorter?) (Is the image redacted?) Tony85poon (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

《无间风云》经过文化部的严格审查，已经获准以音像制品的形式引入内地市场，并删掉了其中涉嫌辱华、敏感的政治性内容以及一些过于暴力、色情的场面，但累计不超过5分钟，不会影响影片观赏。 For those who cannot read Chinese, you are welcome to use machine-translation to understand. See the reasoning now? That's the kind of citation I am asking for. Tony85poon (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

What kind of citations are allowed in the Film censorship in China#List of edited films section? Tony85poon (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Obviously citations that directly support the material. If it only says "shortened", it's not good enough. It needs to say "censored". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

http://chinafilminsider.com/r-rated-films-in-china/ specifically says, "Films in lowercase screened censored in China." Yet Tony85poon chose to ignore it by engaging in edit-warring. I don't know why I should trust his judgment instead of Chinafilminsider which continues to bring news to us. Instead of spending time to whitewash China's censorship issue, why doesn't he add the latest casualty Berlin, I Love You to the list? It just dumbfounds me. Supermann (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I am tired of the editing war, so I shall create a new section 3.1 to distinguish the concept.

The concept looks good, the new list has 12 films. What if the source is partly wrong? Must we believe that your source is 100% correct? Tony85poon (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

"Run time shortened by the producer and/or the distributor commercially in the first place to ensure the profit of movie theaters" that is just efficient-mainlander-way-of-media-control, my friend. The new "3.1 list" is different form the original "3 list" conceptually. Tony85poon (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. As explained before, the June 2017 notice from SAPPRFT bans the spread of so-called complete or uncut version. Once there is a commercial cut, people in China have no way to see the originally intended version by film producers in the theaters. That's effective censorship. Period. But I could imagine you would even argue Chinese people watch pirated movies anyways and therefore there is no censorship. For the ones you kept deleting, it's easy to presume they are cut because of violence not because of commercial reasons. I am pretty sure my source is 100% correct. Pls undo or I would undo. Thanks.Supermann (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

If you want to change the "Run time shortened by the producer and/or the distributor commercially in the first place to ensure the profit of movie theaters" to better wording, AND/OR want to explain "That's effective censorship" somewhere in the article, I am okay. Tony85poon (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Different people can have different judgment of what is right and what is wrong. The "3 list shows" that there is something wrong in the movie by Chinese standard (e.g. suggestion of using nuclear weapon against Taiwan) which is totally okay by Western standard. The "new 3.1 list" means, if there is a new movie coming, the producer / local distributor wants to play a movie over 3 hours, as long as there is nothing "wrong" in the movie, they don't necessarily HAVE TO cut down the run-time. Tony85poon (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Isn't there a whole past RfC about how shortened runtime DOES NOT indicate censorship and that entries on the list need a citation stating that edits were made in the interest in government censorship? Wasn't there a WHOLE thing at ANI and Arbitration and everything over this a year ago? And, in the end, it was determined that sources would have to directly state censored because shortened isn't good enough? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@TenTonParasol: I am not disputing the "consensus" and I am trying to protect it. But this @Tony85poon: came out of nowhere and engaged in edit-warring on multiple pages. I have reported him at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony85poon#Continued_warring_at_Film_censorship_in_China. If you want to chime in, pls do. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC

I feel like we had a discussion before about this exact source a year ago, and I remember being unhappy about it because it was unclear what the exact criteria for "censored" was here, why they were censored, and if it was counting "shortened" as censored. The source is unclear if these films are considered "censored" because they were shortened. I agree with @Finnusertop: in that the source needs to explicitly say "censored" not "shortened". Given this source is mixing the two, equating shortened with censored, I believe this source should be removed and all films using this as its only source. Also, the consensus of the RfC was that shortened runtime is not censorship, so the ENTIRE section "Run time shortened by the producer and/or the distributor commercially in the first place to ensure the profit of movie theaters" is inappropriate per the scope of this article, as extensively discussed in that RfC. A film that has had its running time has been shortened for commercial reasons is beyond the scope of this article and should not be listed, and sources mix the two and make it unclear why it is considering a film censored (so, this specific article from China Film Insider) should be removed. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Also! I was going through the edit history to try and understand the dispute better and this is from December but @Supermann:, you CANNOT say things like you did in this edit summary ("this smacks of vandalism by a communist party member") or this edit summary ("Tony85poon just wants to whitewash censorship. He not only does here but also on other articles"). This sort of behavior and accusations have been brought up to you before as unacceptable. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@TenTonParasol: If you think that section 3.1 is inappropriate, pls undo Tonyspoon85's contributions. That China Film Insider source specifically says, "Films in lowercase screened censored in China," meaning the majority of those currently moved to section 3.1 by Tonyspoon85. I know it's imperfect in terms of not pointing out the obvious, but we all know what's going on. I don't entirely agree with the consensus, but I have chosen to respect it. I have vowed to not make new entries, because I don't want to bother. Others could add Bohemian_Rhapsody_(film) and Green Book (film) for 2019 as they see fit. Thx. Supermann (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not making any changes to the article while the changes are under discussion. And I believe the entries should be removed wholesale, as Tony85spoon originally attempted to do. The source does say that they are censored in China, yes, but that isn't my point: it defines censorship as including shortened runtime for commercial reasons, which is not the definition of censorship used to define the scope of this article as determined by a prior RfC. Generally, the source is of low quality because it does not state WHY the films were censored and it also equates being shortened for commercial reasons as censorship. So, "Films in lowercase screened censored in China" is not good enough as ground for inclusion on the basis of censorship because the article titles in lowercase because of pure shortened runtime for commercial reasons.

Also, stop implying that other editors are trying to sweep Chinese censorship under the rug as you have with "we all know what's going on". ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The CFI source is pretty valid, because the subject is called, "R-Rated Films In China." The majority of the list is censored because of R-rated content, i.e. incl. violence. It's of course not perfect, but at least it's trying to document history. Supermann (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The source does not explicitly say that these films were "censored" for R-rated content. In fact, it actually implies that Cloud Atlas was cut purely for runtime length for commercial reasons, which other sources dispute) and that American Hustle was cut for the same reason, that its running time was too long, rather than content censorship concerns but it still lists the film as censored. This ambiguity makes the source unsuitable. And, again, stop implying that others are trying to erase history. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. "Films in lowercase screened censored in China"...“violence and nudity aside"...We are not capable of drawing a simple inference here? I also disagree with your usage of "implies" for Cloud Atlas and American Hustle. Anyways, you do what you have to do to enforce the rules. Cheers. Supermann (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Run-time

I thank Wikipedia for blocking me from editing. The block has driven me to explain with tangible examples. Muslim country allows a man to marry 4 women. Western laws don’t allow that. English Wikipedia is not about judging what people do “wrongly”.

Another example. Let’s say, if James Cameron releases an Avatar movie for 3-hours, as long as the Chinese local distributors doesn’t cut down the run time, the 3-hour-film can make its way to Chinese movie theatres. But, if any film has any “wrong” content, the Chinese censors do take serious action and cut out the “wrong” part of the film.

Of course, I understand that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The above analysis is not allowed to appear in the regular content of articles until the event actually takes place. In the older version, the “3 list” misleads the readers to think that the Chinese law is strict about the run time too. Actually, the Chinese law is not so strict about the run time. I started edit-warring for this issue. The tone of the article had a bias. They did not stick to the WP:NPOV. If “3.1 list” keeps being deleted from the article, I don’t have a chance to explain the concept. 182.239.114.19 (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia English is now re-blocked in China. https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/05/17/wikimedia-foundation-urges-chinese-authorities-to-lift-block-of-wikipedia-in-china/ Let's "celebrate." There is enough censorship right here regarding the runtime columns.Supermann (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 Censorship

Hello all, would this article be a good source to document censorship in 2019? There is simply not enough coverage from the traditional news media due to the censorship environment and economics. You can use Google Translate or Microsoft Translate to quickly understand what the Chinese says. It's not gonna be a perfect translation. But if we turn our blind eye, even this article would soon disappear as well. Nineteen Eighty-Four is real! Thx. Supermann (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@TenTonParasol: Wikipedia English version has been blocked in China for the past couple of months per https://zh.greatfire.org/en.wikipedia.org. I just don't know why you are stone cold and qualified to dictate what readers get to know about China's cencorship. The Communist party machine is censoring things hard during the Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. We have 565 deaths so far, incl. a whistle blower Li Wenliang (doctor) today! Enough is enough with your so-called consensus and kowtowing to the Communist party! What did the appeasement actually achieve??? Supermann (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Zhao Wei - celebrity management has nothing to do with film censorship?

The online disappearance of Zhao Wei has impacted ALL the films she was in, making them inaccessible legally anymore in China. We don't count after-release censorship? While the RS tried to provide context of what's happening, it's the same old "vague" stuff. I respectfully seek consensus from my usual critics. Thanks.Supermann (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think we should add all her filmography into the list, because nobody knows what happen in three months. But it's really worth mentioning her disappearance here, instead of just saying this is "celebrity culture mgmt" and therefore out of the scope of this article. Everything is connected. Her television series are also inaccessible and I already left that mention out, because TV aren't films. Supermann (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 14 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yaqil10, Mkokoko, Minchannn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Archiving request

• The talk page needs to be archived. I request that the past records be archived and marked as the 2010s.--Beta Lohman (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not an expert, but I think I have it setup to automatically archive any discussion with no comments for 180 days, which is likely the right span. Someone smarter than me take a look. The bot should start archiving within 24 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Another issue. The message is also deleted, you may need to recovery it. --Beta Lohman (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Anyone can do that, it was just a cut, so copy and paste. No need for admin tools to do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)