Jump to content

Talk:Monkey Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reverted

[edit]

@Koala15: I've reverted back to the redirect because it doesn't pass notability guidelines for films as of yet. The film hasn't released and has not received enough coverage in reliable sources to merit it having an article. So far the only coverage has been a handful of news articles that announce that it will release in April, but they're pretty much trivial in nature. It exists at this point in time (although it hasn't released) but existing is not notability and notability is not inherited by it being a Disney film. This just isn't notable enough at this point in time. Wait until it releases and gets 1-2 reviews, then you can revert the redirect. For it to pass WP:NFF it'd have to have a lot of news articles that went into a lot of depth about the film and I just can't see where those exist at this point in time. Just wait it out for a few more months. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Tokyogirl. I'm a WP:3O volunteer and had to decline your post due to lack of thorough discussion from both parties per instructions on the project page. Unless both sides present their views properly, a 3O cannot be given. Also remember to date-stamp rather than sign your post there. Best wishes, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all its a "he". Second, i think it has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. I also don't know why your reporting me, since your the one that is redirecting it. Why not an AFD or request for discussion to see if anyone else agress with your stance? Koala15 (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I don't think it's worth taking to AfD just to redirect it again- which is the most likely outcome here. Also, there's a good chance that the article history may be deleted if it gets taken to AfD, which I'd like to avoid. I did request a discussion at 3O, but they didn't do anything because you didn't come to the talk pages. From there I went to 3RR because you weren't really discussing anything and you weren't providing any sources to show that this film had coverage in the here and now. Part of my issue with the article is that all that we have so far are brief, trivial articles that say that the film will release, but not anything that would actually show notability for the film. There's no coverage of the film's production, no coverage of the film's concept- nothing. The only things that were halfway in-depth are either primary (meaning that they were released by Disney) or they're non-usable fan sites and blogs. I don't really see where you're so against the idea of redirecting this until the film receives more coverage. It's not permanent, it's just until there's more coverage to where this passes notability guidelines. I really don't want to bring this to AfD just to make a point, but if it will help convince you that I'm not making up policy on my own, then that can be beneficial as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring

[edit]

The user Koala15 is trying to censor the truth without a proper explanation. I am from Sri Lanka and here a reputed local newspaper reported that the producers of the Monkey Kingdom destroyed native banyan tree which had been standing in the Polonnaruwa region for 1000 years. this should be in the Wikipedia page. http://www.divaina.com/2015/12/20/feature14.html Ceylonpedia (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should it? As best as I can tell in the article, the tree died after production, and they think it might be related to production. (Machine translation of Sinhalese is rough, so I may be missing nuances.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a controversy. the tree was there for 1000 of years but suddenly died after the end of the production. The newspaper accuses the producers of using a chemical to fall the foliage, so they can record the monkeys on the trees more clearly, but as a side effect, the three ends up being died. There is no reason to remove the controversy. If you think there is something wrong the way I phrased it, you may rephrase it, but removing the whole controversy isn't a good move. honestly, we don't need you people come here and destroy our animals and nature. I knew someone is gonna remove this controversy soon or later because Wikipedia is quite popular for censoring the things which are a disadvantage to the west. If this is not posted in here, it will be posted in somewhere because you can't censor the truth.Ceylonpedia (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's the key word: "The newspaper accuses." They don't have proof, but they're drawing the conclusion. The article needs to state just that there was an accusation, not that it happened.
@Ceylonpedia: Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Articles can only contain what is verifiable. See also the essay WP:Verifiability, not truth. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if it is rephrased as an accusation, the controversy is allowed post in here? Ceylonpedia (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've done as the last sentence of the Production section. —C.Fred (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was again removed by Koala15 saying the source is not reliable. Divaina is a very reliable source and a highly reputed Srilankan newspaper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divaina It seems like Koala15 may be paid by the producers of Monkey Kingdom to censor the controversies of Monkey Kingdom. Ceylonpedia (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on content, and not the contributors. Since we're not familiar with Divaina, you need to provide evidence to corroborate the assertion that the newspaper is so highly reputed. I'm not saying it isn't; I'm just saying I need proof that it is. —C.Fred (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How you want me to prove Divaina is a reliable source? It's a national newspaper and being in the industry for decades. they are one of biggest in here. it's same as Newyork times in US. perhaps you can call them and ask if they are a reliable source or not, because I don't know how to prove. but as a native I know they post reliable news. Are other sources reliable? did they prove you personally they are reliable? I used to be in wikipedia back in 2007 but due to heavy censoring I gave up posting in wikipedia, including in the sinhalese wikipedia page. I came back again to post this incident, because they didn't mention the damage they have done to the ecological system during the production. this is just one incident, there might be more than that. the area is so rural, people are uneducated. anything can happen. like this? yeah it's a scene of a movie but it really happens a lot in here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwAg9O142ok&index=8&list=PL7E8FD06AF3CE23D1 I wish I can prove them all and bring those criminals to justice but I am not in the position to do something like that. 

Ceylonpedia (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We are not an instrument to "bring…criminals to justice". Articles should be written neutrally by impartial editors and based on verifiable information in reliable sources. Statements like the above could be interpreted by other editors as indicators that you have a non-neutral point of view. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user Koala15 keeps removing it without a proper explanation. can you do something about it? Ceylonpedia (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Divaina story about the banyan tree

[edit]
SOURCE/SENTENCE REMOVED
RFC Closed - Source removed - The newspaper "alleges" ... so basically they have absolutely no idea but are instead simply guessing .... Unless a source actually confirms a tree was killed by the film makers than it shouldn't be readded. –Davey2010Talk 00:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Expert attention requested also if somebody here reads Sinhalese readily.

About a week ago, Ceylonpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added material to the article about destruction of a banyan tree during production of the movie. I rewrote a compromise version of the text, but Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted it outright.

The issue seems to be the Divaina story used as a source.[1] It's in Sinhalese, and I'm reading the Google machine-translated version of the text. As best as I can see, the newspaper is accusing the production company of destroying the tree. It's hard to tell if this is an editorial opinion or the result of journalistic investigation, but it feels like the former. So, that creates an issue of verifiability and self-sourcing.

I'd like some fresh eyes to look at this and help determine a few things:

  1. Is Divaina a source we should refrain from using?
  2. If not, is it writing in editorial tone instead of journalistic?
  3. If it is editorial tone, can we use the material at all, or is it an unbacked allegation? Or, do we need to disclaim it by saying that the newspaper is making the accusation?

Again, I think getting a few more editors involved would help, especially if they can read the article directly. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add this video of a news team interview on the same subject youtube also in sinhalese (I believe)SPACKlick (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Divaina should be an accepted source. I use it in my references and it is a popular newspaper in Sri Lanka. According to the article it seems the banyan tree has actually died after the movie. --Lee (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's happening here? The discussion is over or people lost the interest? --Lee (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monkey_Kingdom&oldid=1209139057"