Talk:One Nine Nine Four

Criticism
I have removed the criticism section twice now, and it is not, as has been claimed, vandalism. The section is based on the opinions of around 20 people on an internet message board. This is not a valid source and certainly not widespread opinion. It seems the author that is adding this section has some sort of problem with "what is referred to as modern punk rok" as he writes, and hence this section fails NPOV. Please do not add the section back without valid sources from media critics etc. Nouse4aname 10:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * it is a valid source for the claims which it makes, the text does not claim that the opinions are widespread but the opinion of the users of that site which is relevant as this is likely to cause controversy. Also considering that there are so few source commenting on this film available the fact that all the articles that allow comment have created that reaction is noteworthy. I have made it clearer were the critism came from and balanced it out to include the positive review by critics. Therefore it can stay. note, Materials should not be removed without discussion and consensus. That is vandalism --Neon white 00:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you are wrong. It is not a reliable source. Please read Verifiability, which states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Also see WP:BLP "Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject". As you can see, your source, which relates to a message board on a music website is neither reliable nor relevant. The opinions of 23 writers on such a message board are not relevant to an encyclopedia article. A negative review by a trusted, reputable source however would be relevant. The reason that there are so few negative reviews are that the film is not released. If you are so adamant to include negative reviews, wait until the film is released and then add proper, verifiable and reliable sources, of which I am sure there will be plenty. Contrary to your belief, my removal of content that I is unverifiable is not vandalism. The re-addition of such content, without reliable and accurate sources however could be considered vandalism. I have now removed this section again. Please do not re-add this, without correctly referencing it. Nouse4aname 08:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Further reading. See also Verifiability and note 5 which clearly states "Posts left on these columns by readers may never be used as sources". This applies to all message board posts. Regards Nouse4aname 11:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand this guideline, the comments are not being used as a citation for facts reported in the article but to cite the existance of themselves. The only way you can cite the fact that the comments exist is the cite the page itself. Therefore it is a primary source. The truth of the comments arent in question as the comments arent mentioned in the article it simply mentions their existance. The source is not a message board but comments on an article. The only thing being presented as a fact is that the comments exist which is undeniable. Citations exist in case anyone questions the facts and the facts here are that comments were made on the article and this particlar citation showes that fact.
 * It is very relevant, considering the film has not been released yet, that it has already recieved negative comment. This is not a review. It's about comments made by users of gigwise as the article states. The comments are verified and referenced and will remain. I repeat content should not be deleted without a proper consenus which is not yet acheived in doing so you are in serious violation of wikipedia etiquette. I have continually worked to review and ammend the accuracy of the passage, you seem only intent on deleting it at every opportunity. The first job of any editor is to make the passage more accurate. 'Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule'. Removing whole passages without attempting an edit or without consensus is vandalism. --Neon white 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is precident. SimCity Societies cites Simtropolis forum discussion for the claim 'The game was originally meant to attract old SimCity fans and new players alike, however, the general attitude from fans shows that Tilted Mill may have lost this demographic.' Also the movie site rotten tomatoes is also widely used to cite fan reactions. --Neon white 20:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, this is getting a bit ridiculous now. You make many points, and so I will try to answer them all. Firtsly, I am misunderstanding nothing: everything that is likely to be questioned must have a relevant source. The reason for providing such a source is not to "prove" that something simply exists, it is to provide the reader with the original place where a fact/statement is first made. This source must be reliable, and based on fact, not opinion. The comments section at the end of such an article is a form of message board - it is a place where anyone can post their opinion,and as such any comment made is unverifiable. It is not enough to just prove that these comments exist, you must prove that they are accurate, reliable and above all relevant. Which brings me to your next point. You claim that these comments are relevant, I state that they are not. There are 23 comments on this message board, of which maybe half are coherent. They are of absolutely no relevance to the article - this is an encyclopedia, random opinion on the internet has no place here. The comments cannot be verified, as the message board is not peer reviewed. Now that I have addressed (hopefully for the last time) the fact that such comments are irrelevant, I will address your unfounded accusations. Let me first warn you however, that such accusations are not welcome, and I would appreciate it if you refrain from making such comments in future. I am not in any way in violation of etiquette. I deleted such comments twice, and then brought the matter to the attention of an admin. It is not possible to make you comments "more accurate" as they are based on an unreliable source. As such, they cannot remain. The precedent that you cite is hardly a comparable matter; you seem to refer to a rather professional-looking review that is posted on a forum. In this instance, we are looking at a handful of comments posted by random internet users. Have now seen the other references using forum posts...maybe these shouldn't be included either? This is not a case of "one article uses them, so why can't this". I apologise for the length of this response, however this is now becomming a rather serious matter. The current consensus is that these comments should not be included. This is supported by an experience admin. If you continue to add this content back, then I am sure further action will be taken against you. I trust we can now leave this matter, and agree to disagree for the time being. Nouse4aname 08:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Forums are not reliable sources, regardless of what exists in other articles. There is, as yet, very little to say about this future film. If unverified or unreliable info is continually added it may be protected until such time as there is something useful to add.  Dei z  talk 10:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not being used as source for fact but for proof of it's existance. The comments do not need to be reliable because they are not being quoted, it just needs to prove its existance. Therefore it's the only source possible. This particlur passage is only expressing the fact that the comments exist it has nothing to do with the accuracy of said opinions. Which cant be facts cause they are opinions and public opinion is often quoted in article because it is useful knowledge. We are not reproducing those opnions as facts in any way. As with the sim city societies page it is simply reporting negative feedback which is relevant. The simtropolis forums are not professional, it is a fan site and the views are those of fans as is stated in the article and also in this article. The point of that precedent is to show your misunderstanding of the rule that you should not use a message board to back up a fact, that is obvious but to report such things as public opinion and reaction, you have to use such sources because that's where the public voice their opinions.


 * Of course they need to be reliable, otherwise they cannot be used. Proof of existence is not proof of accuracy. Opinions are inherently unreliable and also completely unworthy of an encyclopedia article, I'm not surehow to make this clear to you. The fact that other articles use forums as sources does not mean that they are correct in doin so...23 comments cannot constitute public opinion either.
 * If you disagree with the truth and accuracy of the statement then please say and we can agree to make it more accurate but as far as i can see the statement is both accurate and true so i dont understand you're objections. May i remind you that deleting before discussion is a violation of wikipedia etiquette. As is deleting a statement that you well know is accurate. 'we are looking at a handful of comments posted by random internet users.' - actually they are users of gigwise which the statement specifically says. You alone do not constitute a consensus and deleting accurate statemtents before a consensus is reached will result in further action will be taken against you as will making such threats against other editors. Seriously brush up on your etiquette and civility especially the part about assuming good faith.


 * I believe that there are people that made these comments, however the source is not reliable. These people must be shown to be in a position to make a valid comment. As this is not a published, peer-reviewed source, you cannot claim that these people are knowledgable enought to be making such comments. For all you know, they are a bunch of 15-year olds with a computer, not a professional music critic. I am not breaking etiquette. I am deleting content that is unsourced, and cannot be verified. It would be pointless tagging it as citation needed, as no reliable source is possible at present. Myself and an experienced admin count as a consensus. Deiz has repeatedly explained the situation, and you continue to ignore it.
 * The bottom line is that stating that a handful of gigwise users commented negatively on the films press release is an accurate statement, i doubt you would argue otherwise as you have seen the comments and therefore know this to be true. The citation exists so others can do the same. A discussion about noteworthiness is a seperate discussion to one about reliable source. It's really no different than using Rotten Tomatoes to guage user reaction to a film, which is almost the norm on film articles. --Neon white 14:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but is this notable to the article. The answer is NO. The opinions of 23 users of a website do not count for anything, and therefore they do not belong on the article. Noteworthiness comes first. Is it notable? If so, can I provide a reliable source?

I trust you will now understand that such comments are not to be added again, hence the protection of the page. Cheers. Nouse4aname 09:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

1994
As Nouse has stated, forum noise has absolutely no place on WP. The article was also heavily padded with an unecessary list of bands and interviewees. As there is, as yet, very little to report about this upcoming film, a short synopsis and mention of some notable interviewees is just fine for the moment.  Dei z  talk 11:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above it is not forum content. It is feedback on an article. --Neon white 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is still counted as a message board/forum. Further to my points above, I cannot find any of the 23 comments that actually completely agree with what you are saying. Your content reads: "Whilst the movie has been welcomed, it has been criticised by a limited number of users of the music news and review site Gigewise, commenting on an article about the film, some criticised it's portrayal what they see as modern commercial pop and rock bands like Blink 182 and Green Day as punk rock and reopening the much debated subject of the validity of these bands claims that their music is a continuation of the same punk rock movement rooted in the sixties and seventies". However, the comments only consist of claims that such bands are "not punk". They do not say anything about punk music in the 60's or 70's. You also do not provide evidence that blink or green day are considered pop or rock...check out their wiki articles, they have sources that say punk rock, pop punk and alt rock. What you are doing is interpreting these comments to fit your own agenda, and so not only are these comments unverifiable, but they also do not say what you claim they do. Nouse4aname 08:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * i do not have an agenda, please cease these basely accusations, if you want to see the genre dispute check out the discussion pages of the bands in question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Green_Day/Genre_disputes Claims that they are linked to the punk rock movement are very much questioned on those pages by fans and all around the web. Also the article contains the comment made by Steve Diggle of the Buzzcocks to that effect. The Punk rock wikipedia page cites noted music journalist Ben Myers also for the dispute. Their clearly is a dispute between the mainstream, mtv, commercial radio defintion of punk rock and it's habit of using the term as a broad umberella for all commercial pop-rock/pop-punk/alt rock/garage rock etc bands which influences many people and the more learned defintion of the 60s/70s movement.  --Neon white 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Non-notable forum opinions removed, article protected. Sorry it had to come to this.  Dei z  talk 16:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)