Talk:Misjudged People

Revert from mainly-unsourced expansion
I reverted a mainly-unsourced expansion (seen here) that used content from the German-language article. I did this because the "Film Development" section is completely unsourced, and the "Film Synopsis and Premiere" has no source for passages besides one that existed before. The "Ban and Reintroduction" section is half-sourced and half-unsourced, and I am disinclined to keep such a messy section if it has not been properly written out. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * has reintroduced unsourced content to the English-language article. They claim they "checked all of sources and citations", but their second attempt is simply a repeat of the first attempt. The German-language article has the issues I highlighted above, just in a different language, and the same issues should not be imported. It should be clear which reliable source is behind every passage or set of passages, and that is not the case here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:V says, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." For example, for the attempted "Film Development" section, where do the three completely unsourced paragraphs come from? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , please comment here and see above. If you want to restore content, there needs to be inline citations to indicate which reliable source covers that content. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

, are you able to help regarding the version based on the German-language article, to ensure inline citations for all the content translated from that article? Regarding the synopsis, since this is not a film readily accessible (as far as I know), readers cannot immediately verify its content. So a secondary source describing the film's contents would need to be referenced. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No, but I do what I can. I explained to Oliver - who is new to this culture and deserves a bit more patient treatment - (in German) that I'll move a ref to here, and things supported by that ref could be added, and sourced. Erik, plots don't need any ref, did you know. Oliver, please restore your plot section from here, but please take care not to save that version again. Let's take it from there. Most of the links in the German article are dead by now, I wonder if we can find replacements. Example: I'm sure the BR broadcast happened, - just the link is gone. I invite all involved to offer a little bit more good faith. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding the plot, I'm aware that plots normally don't need inline citations. However, this is based on the assumption that a film is accessible to a reader, who can watch it themselves. Is that the case here or not? WP:FILMPLOT says, "Provided the film is publicly available, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary, since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film. Secondary sources must be used for all other cases, such as upcoming films (including those that had sneak previews and only played at film festivals) and lost films, as these would not be considered generally available or verifiable." I'm sure a secondary source is possible, from the Schuchman reference or elsewhere. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I added two refs, and some external links which could be made to refs. - The film has been shown (again) from 2010, and the "plots need no refs" is true also for books, so I guess we don't have to be too conservative. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)