Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-06 Saw 2

Request Information

 * Request made by: -Jackel 00:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Saw 2


 * Who's involved?
 * Primarily myself and Nnfolz


 * What's going on?
 * Rev war. A section of this entry is lableled "Criticisms", indicating film critics (with the cited reviews) criticising the over-complexity and improbable good luck of the antagonist's plots. This does not appear to be disputed by Nnfolz, (as he has left this statement undisturbed) but he/she keeps removing specific examples of these criticisms, declaring them "invalid" but not providing any basis for this viewpoint. A debate ensued on the talk page, but while Nnfolz has backed off several of his contentions, he/she still continues to undermine the efforts of no fewer than 3 editors attempting to restore this section, without responding to specific disputes.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Nnfolz should either accept the consensus of editors and viewers who have no issue with the provided examples or provide specific objections to the specific examples he/she disputes.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * I am not concerned with discretion at this point.

Comments by others
The issue seems to center around this content, which is currently not in the article. If they really are criticisms of the film, they seem valid enough points. However, criticisms of movies can only be included when they are attributable to a source. Remember, no original research; this goes for reviews as well. This means that those statements must be attributed to some known movie critic or magazine.

If the additions were to be sourced and referenced they should certainly be included. If they are not, then they should not.

Cheers, The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 16:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response
Withdrawn by submitter. --Fasten 16:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)