Talk:The Ritual (2017 film)

Screen writer and edit warring
, you have been edit warring over the screen writer listing. Editor with the IP ending in a416:ed9b, so have you. Both of you please stop.

So far as I can see the article at https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/12/the-ritual-review-rafe-spall-brit-horror does not list an Eve Stake as a screen writer or in any other capacity. Unless some reliable, source does list Ms. Stake as a screen writer for this film, she cannot be included in the article. As the person wanting to include this name, IP editor, the WP:BURDEN falls on you to provide a reliable, source which specifically says that she wrote or co-wrote the film. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I was NOT edit warring. I 1) left a very polite and friendly message on this user's Talk page to solve the issue, 2) thoroughly checked all the accessible sources to find any other appropriate source for this addition myself (and failed), 3) reverted their edit for the last, third time, treating this edit as a hoaxing vandalism, since it was obvious at that point that someone is trying to conceal a deliberately false addition by adding a fake citation to the article. I am very attentive to what stands behind added information and never revert something when in doubt. I take into consideration every factor I can in order to understand the editor's intent. Comments like this really discourage me, as if I did not know what edit warring is and why it is not constructive at all. Thank you. Juliette Han (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the policy section Edit warring lists seven cases in which repeated reversion is not edit warring. This does not fit any of them, no matter how polite your message to the other user or how carefully you checked the source. Adding unsourced or miss-sourced info to a non-BLP page is not on the exemption list. When your message plus 2 reverts did not induce the other editor to stop adding in the improperly sourced (effectively unsourced) statement, you should have stopped reverting and instead made a report at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. That way it is clear who is and who is not warring. I had no way of knowing how experienced or knowledgeable you were, so I left a rather generic message, with a link to the relevant policy page.  DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit_warring says the following: Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism § Types of vandalism and Wikipedia:Vandalism § What is not vandalism. Hoaxing vandalism is vandalism after all, and it should be distinguished from unsourced and mis-sourced good faith edits that may rise a dispute. It was indisputable that someone tried to deliberately insert information that was not present in the source and wished to leave it unnoticed. My message did induce the other editor to stop adding in the improperly sourced statement, please see their Talk page. My edit summaries also indicate clearly that I had been guided by common sense. For example, this isn't up for discussion (neither on this Talk page, nor on Administrators' noticeboard) that misleading others about what are the sources of the information that is not present in any other accessible source is a hoax. I also think that 'Both of you please stop' wording may hurt editors if they actually did not intend to start anything bad. Thank you. Juliette Han (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Juliette Han that this was vandalism and is exempted from WP:3RR. This is false information that the IP editor repeatedly restored while lying about it being supported by a source they cited, and they have also not responded to any messages on their talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Premise
Per WP:FILMLEAD: "In terms of plot, the general premise of the film should be briefly summarized, and any actors' roles in the premise can also be identified." I've restored the premise. However, I see that I mistakenly removed the release paragraph and support having it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The Jötunn
In the current description of the film, it stays that the bastard child's name is "Moder." In the film, the young woman never states the God's name, referring to it as something that "shall not be named." 2603:6010:7FF0:7000:813F:1184:9A91:4D25 (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)