Talk:Murder-Set-Pieces

Claims of inaccuracy
User:Slevysocal has consistently been reverting edits back to a promotional-laden copy of the article, both here and in Nick Palumbo, which is not consistent with Wikipedia content. Okay, I think everyone but Slevysocal agrees that that's wrong. However, his last several reversions have included the edit summary ''Do you want Wiki to publish the correct facts? There are several things in this article (that you keep re-verting back to) that are simply not true. Please use the Links.''

Obviously, we do want the information to be accurate; but at the same time, we do not want to substitute marketing hype. I invite Slevysocal to discuss the specific inaccuracies he perceives here, so they can be addressed constructively.

Slevysocal, we are not going to substitute your preferred text. As you can see, the consensus is strongly against this, and you evidently have a conflict of interest with respect to this article. However, like most editors, we would like to work with you to make this an accurate article, even if it will not be the promotional piece you are apparently looking for.

Note: I am opening a similar discussion at Talk:Nick Palumbo. TJRC (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"self-appointed NC-17 rating"
An IP editor keeps adding that the film has a " self-appointed NC-17 rating". No source is provided for this claim.

This is dubious, because "NC-17" is a trademark of the MPAA; they moved to this from the old "X" rating precisely to keep non-MPAA entities from applying their own ratings, rather than reflecting MPAA's judgment.

In his or her edit summaries, the IP editor states that he or she is relying on his or her own research, checking the filmratings.com site, and, not finding this film listed, concluding that the filmmaker, and not the MPAA, assigned its own rating. That's WP:SYNTH. Absent any statement in a reliable source that this is a self-assigned rating, this claim should be omitted, if fo no other reason than it is accusing the filmmaker of trademark infringement. If no reliable source can be found to support this, the statement should be omitted. (Even if it happens to be true, if no reliable source can be found to mention it, that is an indication that it's not all that important of a fact.) TJRC (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article states that the film was released with an NC-17 rating. This is partially true.  The poster of the film displayed an NC-17 rating, presumably because an NC-17 rating would be inevitable and they didn't want to bother having it actually submitted.  If the rating had been real, the NC-17 on the poster would have displayed content descriptors (e.g. "NC-17 for extreme aberrant sexual and violent content").  The poster for The Great American Snuff Film also had an unofficial NC-17 rating on it (presumably because the filmmakers were expecting one), although that film was eventually submitted and rated R.  Filmratings.com is the ultimate, most reliable source when it comes to what films have been rated what.  The only rating for Murder-Set-Pieces is the heavily edited R-rated version.  The film was never officially given an NC-17 rating.--76.106.255.89 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If the film was never "officially given" an NC-17 rating, then the statement that it has an NC-17 rating (unsourced) should be removed. It does not indicate that there was a self-rating.  The poster is not a good source: it could reflect an expected or planned rating.  Also, this poster comes from an unreliable pirate site, and I don't think should be relied on in any event. The basic point remains unchanged: there is no source for the claim that the studio self-rated this film as NC-17.  TJRC (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And there is no source that says it was "released with an NC-17 rating" either. The NC-17 rating on the poster was indeed most likely there because they knew it would be NC-17, even though it was never actually submitted.  You basically just restated everything I said.--76.106.255.89 (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I've not restated what you said. I think the only thing we agree on is that "there is no source that says it was 'released with an NC-17 rating' either."  Hence my comment that "the statement that it has an NC-17 rating (unsourced) should be removed".  TJRC (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)