Talk:Wolf Warrior 2

— Assignment last updated by Angiechau (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
"Lamanla infected bodies"? What's this? An invention of the movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neils51 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal explained
I recently removed some reviews from the "critical reception" of this article. Here are my explanations. --Whaterss (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) These reviews I removed are all negative ones and were all added by U|安眠3 who has been good at adding negative content which vilifies China and its government unselectively, e.g.1, 2, 3 and others.
 * 2) By "critical reception", we mean this section should include film critics's reception on this film. Nevertheless, 安眠3 even added "Yin Shanshan, a lecturer"'s irrational and biased review to this section.
 * 3) Both NYT and Irish times's reviews even don't comment on the film itself. Conversely, the NYT review focuses on its "individualist personal quest" and asserts the film downplaying "the Communist Party in favor of patriotism and defending Chinese people and Chinese interests all over the world". In terms of the Irish times one, it's more laughable. This reviews concentrates on the film's reflection of so-called "China's thirst for expanding of its military forces aboard". Does this have anything to do with a film REVIEW which is supposed to be dedicated to one film's visual effects, the ability to tell stories, actors' performance and others.


 * Whaterss, this is just another example of your attempting to censor content that might reflect badly on some aspect of China. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not censored, nor is it an appropriate venue for your political agenda editing. Certainly a film review can analyse a film from a political perspective – please stop trying to censor Wikipedia for utterly frivolous reasons like these, and stop blanking sections of reliably-sourced content. Also, whether or not you personally consider a critic's review "irrational" is completely irrelevant as to whether or not it belongs here. Citobun (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)




 * 1) Again, you are using the wrong words. I hereby restate that my edits are not "censorship". Per censorship: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information that may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions." Unluckily, I belong to none of them. I presume you should've known this. Probably you feel like using "censorship" to label me a "freedom oppressor" to gain sympathy from others.
 * 2) Seemingly in your view reliable sources are utterly sacred which cannot be even removed for being biased. As a matter of fact, however, this isn't always true. (Per WP:BIASED: Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources...)
 * 3) "Also, whether or not you personally consider a critic's review "irrational" is completely irrelevant as to whether or not it belongs here." Well, this point is pretty interesting. My consideration is not related, what about yours and others? As human, we are all subjective. Or you mean their are some objective individuals who can determine whether these content should be here,
 * 4) "By "critical reception", we mean this section should include film critics's reception on this film." You didn't respond to this. Yin Shanshan is merely a lecturer in a university who is obviously not a critical which means her comments should not appear in the critical reception section. Not to mention she posted her absurd opinions on social media. --Whaterss (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please refer to this dictionary definition of censorship and stop trying to deflect the conversation into this sort of pedantry. The root problem is your long-term political agenda editing.


 * If you want to blank properly-referenced content, the onus is on you to provide an appropriate rationale grounded in Wikipedia policy. You haven't. Considering you think the BBC is an unreliable source, I am not really sure what you consider an appropriate source for Wikipedia.


 * It doesn't matter if you personally consider a critic's review "irrational". Your role as a Wikipedia editor is not to be the arbiter of this. Wikipedia articles reflect aspects of the subject that have been covered in reliable secondary sources – which this person's review has.


 * She is a critic, by the definition of the word critic. She is even referred to as a "critic" in the RFA headline! Again, stop trying to deflect the discussion into this kind of inane pedantry. The fact is, you are still attempting to censor Wikipedia in spite of our policies at WP:NOT; you have ignored prior warnings on these grounds; and you have not provided any grounds rooted in Wikipedia policy to blank this content. Citobun (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Citing RFA which is funded by US government and cannot serve as a RS only shows your political agenda either. Btw, you are still attempting to hide from my question and avoid confrontation. Whatever issues related to this article can be discussed in the talkpage, even they're so -called "pedantry". Lastly, I admit BBC is mostly a RS, yet it doesn't mean its branch-BBC Chinese-is reliable, too. Even if BBC Chinese is mostly reliable, it doesnt suggest every article on it is reliable. Whaterss (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Which question am I hiding from...? Regarding RFA, in this context there is no doubt as to the veracity of the material given that it's merely reporting on comments that were previously published. Citobun (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Censorship issue, technically I don't censor anything(see my previous explanations) and thus don't violate WP:NOT. Whaterss (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, if you really wish to drag us into arguing over DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS, there are plenty that indicate the definition of "censor" is not limited to governments. You have still no provided no policy-based grounds to blank this content. Given your history of political agenda editing, I feel completely comfortable calling this an attempt at politically-rooted censorship – which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Citobun (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Btw, I wonder if you can speak Chinese(or Cantonese). As far as I know, most Hong Kongers are bilingual Whaterss (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Great? Keep wondering, because my personal information has nothing to do with this discussion. Citobun (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Speaking of dictionary, undoutedly the most prominent one is Oxford Dictionary, lets see how it defines "censor".(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censor)"Examine (a book, film, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it." By officially, it means by authorities. Again, it's about something relevant to government which has nothing to do with mine. Whaterss (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * How about looking up censorship, the actual word we are discussing, in the same dictionary? Citobun (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, as exactly as I have expected, some Hong Kong guys are extremely hostile to mainlanders. Whaterss (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Lacking any rationale rooted in Wikipedia policy, you are now verging into the territory of personal attacks. Citobun (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Did I attack you? Referring you as hostile has nothing to do with personal attacks. Whaterss (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Quite ironically, Citobun enjoys whining and crying about 'personal attacks' while veiledly accusing others of 'sock puppetry' without evidence. He has not yet realized the mere use of the key-phrase 'personal attacks' to describe something does not in fact render that thing an actual 'personal attack'.  But let's be patient with him, I'm sure he'll get there eventually.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.163.172 (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Censor and censorship are the same things. One is the verb, the other is the noun. Referring to either isn't basically of too much difference. Since you mention "censorship", lets be serious. The original definition is "The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security." which talks about book, films and news. Some petty sentences are clearly not included. Whaterss (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Citobun baby boy, instead of bickering over the definition of 'censorship' (no one cares) why don't you just come clean about your anti-Chinese bias? I'm removing negative reviews that are not from film critics so that the 'Critical reception' section is balanced and reflective of the high scores it has on Douban. Given that it's a Chinese film I'm also spectacularly disinterested in any attempted explanation as to why there are more Western critics cited in the Critical Reception section than Chinese critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.27.10 (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks aren't relevant to the discussion. You haven't provided any policy-based justification for blanking this content, so I've restored it. This is Wikipedia, so you are free to add reviews from Chinese critics as long as the content is cited to reliable sources. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There was no personal attack in my comment. Read my comment again, but carefully this time, and then take a deep breath and think before replying to me.  I had provided a policy-based justification for my editing of the Critical Reception section - to provide a balanced view that is reflective of the relatively high critical rating it has.  My comment was one paragraph long - it boggles my mind that you weren't able to comprehend it properly.  And for your information, Cito boy, I'm also from Hong Kong - except I don't have pictures of the Umbrella Revolution plastered all over my Wikipedia page.  Remember, edits (and Wikipedia) are supposed to be impartial.  You should hold yourself to the same standard.  A film with an average critical reception (as shown on Metacritic and IMDB) will have a Critical Reception section that has roughly equal amounts of positive and negative critical reception.


 * I have edited the 'critical reception' so that it is roughly equal in terms of positive and critical reception, which is accurate to the movie's average IMDB and Metacritic rating. It is absurd to have a critical reception section that is overwhelmingly negative when this is not reflected in the film's IMDB or Metacritic score.  Other firms on Wikipedia follow this formula - the amount of positive/negative reviews cited in the Critical Reception section of a film is roughly proportional to the film's IMDB/Metacritic score.  I see no reason why Wolf Warriors 2 should be exempt from this precedent - unless you think that it should be an exception to a general Wikipedia precedent (thus impliedly making this article not impartial).  It is also ridiculous to expect that instead of balancing a Critical Reception section through selective editing, I should instead add MORE positive reviews.  What will eventually happen is that the Critical Reception section will grow and grow without limit - the Critical Reception section of most films on Wikipedia are short and concise.  Again, if Wolf Warriors 2's article isn't beholden to the same precedent, this would impliedly render the article not impartial.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.163.172 (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * OK. Again, you are still providing no policy-based rationale to blank content cited to reliable sources. Also, please review Sock puppetry and consider getting an account. Citobun (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I provided a policy-based rationale - the rationale that to edit the Critical Reception thusly would be to present a fair, balanced, unbiased representation of the article consistent with previous Wikipedia stylistic and content precedent (in other words, a Neutral Point-of-View). Read my comments carefully - I've talked about this before already.  Use Ctrl+F "policy" to help you, and if you really need the help, sound the words out loud carefully.  Like I also said, I'm in Hong Kong, so if you would like, I can come over and read the words aloud to you slowly for a nominal fee.  I'll also pat you on the head and tuck you into bed afterwards.  If you would like some coloring books I can also bring those over.  I also have no idea what you're trying to insinuate with the 'sock puppetry' link, but remember, you were the one crying about 'personal attacks' when nothing of the sort took place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.163.172 (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please review the policy at Civility. I made reference to sockpuppetry because this issue has drawn confirmed sockpuppets (now banned, above) and because you have commented here using multiple IPs (i.e. 125.63.27.10 and 42.3.163.172), which is very confusing. Citobun (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Have you heard of these things called aircraft? People use them to travel to different countries. Funnily enough, when people are in different countries, their IP address changes!  It's a mind-boggling concept, I know - are you still confused, Cito boy? My offer to bring you some coloring books still stands.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.44.239 (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Move Wolf Warrior 2 to the "list of highest grossing films" in wikipedia
Someone please move Wolf Warrior 2 to the list of highest grossing films

Its box office is currently ranked 49th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_films

Thank you,

--2602:306:8BCA:1070:A530:8BFB:57C4:CCB3 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for the advancement of political views
A reminder to everyone: Wikiepdia articles are not a tool wherein you advance your political views: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advocacy. Selectively editing articles to shy away from a Neutral Point of View in order to support an anti-Chinese POV on an article describing a Chinese film isn't really a productive exercise, now is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.163.172 (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, if you feel that inclusion of negative reviews of this film is "anti-Chinese", a constructive response would be to add more Chinese perspectives to the article. The negative reviews are reliably sourced and should not be blanked. Citobun (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If you think that a 'solution' wherein the logical conclusion is that the 'Critical Reception' of an article would constitute the bulk of the article (contrary to the form of most other articles on films in Wikiepdia) as I source more Chinese reviews and your inevitable response would be then to respond with a greater amount of negative reviews (as you would doubtless do, since you're obviously using Wikipedia to push your anti-mainland-Chinese agenda in direct breach of Wikipedia policies) is an acceptable outcome, then I don't know what to say. If you'd like to discuss this in person, you're welcome to meet up with me.  I'll even bring you some coloring books.  Be a real man and stand behind your words.  3PM, December 30th, outside the Starbucks in Fashion Walk in CWB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.44.239 (talk)


 * I would not add more negative reviews. I didn't add those negative reviews in the first place. I also don't know anything about this film. Citobun (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)