Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board/Archive 1

Neutral language in critical reception
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Should we use "positive or negative", as opposed to "acclaim or panned" in order to describe the critical reception of films?Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree A number of editors worked together on this wording to describe the concerns:


 * Due to frequent edit-warring, disagreements and time-consuming debates over editors' subjective terms in the first line of the Reception section ("favorable reviews" "highly favorable reviews" "universal acclaim" "mixed" "mixed-to-positive" etc.), it is proposed we dispense with editors' POV interpretation of film-critic aggregate figures and instead go straight to the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic figures and summations we already quote.


 * For example:


 * The film received an 85% approval rating based on 117 reviews listed at the film-critics aggregate site RottenTomatoes.com, which summarized them as 'A meandering script and uneven acting, but lush cinematography and a director to watch for.' [footnote] Metacritic calculated an average score of 82, based on 39 reviews, and said, "Accents go in and out but this jewel box of a film captures the eye and never lets it go.' [footnote] CinemaScore polls reported that audiences gave the film was "B" average on an A+ to F scale, and that audiences skewed slightly male and older. [footnote].


 * If the RT or Metacritic summary said "acclaimed" or a similar word, that would be an objective part of its summary quote, not a subjective interpretation by Wiki editors.
 * --Tenebrae (talk)


 * Agree (although technically we're advocating not even using positive/negative either) – It's the cleanest approach to just bypass that introductory sentence and jump straight into the scores and summaries themselves, and then cover the various aspects of the critical reception. These "critically acclaimed", "panned", and "mixed to negative" conclusions by editors are often completely unnecessary and are usually contentious. The two main issues are that i) the aggregators quantify, they don't qualify i.e. a film could get 90% rave reviews and another could receive 100% lukewarm reviews, and on RT that would see the film with generally weaker reviews classified as "fresher" ii) the aggregators don't speak for all the other reviews, they justinterpret them, so it is still just one opinion at the end of the day. It's a small issue really, but as we've seen it's an open invitation to peacock langauge, and it does raise an important question over where interpretation ends, and original research starts. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree If there is a question about an editor's characterization of a film's reception, it should be sourced like any other content that is dubious. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's the crux of the issue: People are using terms like "critically acclaimed" and "universally positive" and "slammed" when it's only their interpretation of the aggregate. Right now there are time-consuming reverts and arguments simply because nothing is in place that specifically disallows such interpretation, and fans of particular movies get extremely adamant even in the face of multiple editors saying otherwise. It's one edit-war after another, and going through mediation protocol for every one of these WP:SNOWBALL cases is exhausting. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Right to exist
I invite neutral commentary on this article, particularly this section on "Pakistan", which, I believe, has been deliberately skewed byPakistani nationalist editors, User:TopGun ,USer:Mar4d,and the sock of indefbanned user USer:Nangparbat into promoting non-neutral anti-Indian sentiments. In particular these statements are reproduced from partisan Pakistani blogs and presented as fact:

"It is essential that Indians deeply and meaningfully recognize Pakistan’s right to exist as a nation independent from India. Indians cannot let their nostalgia for the past–which is, in fact, the national pain over the Partition in 1947 which led to the creation of Pakistan – blind them to the reality of Pakistan as a sovereign state."

In addition, the remark "By refusing to accept the 1947 partition of the British Indian empire, India even challenged Pakistan's right to exist." is Original Research, since India officially only rejects the Two Nation Theory, not Pakistan's sovereignity as such. Furthermore, the cited source here indicates the opposite of what this article claims i.e. it is Pakistan that denies India's right to exist.

Furthermore, I was compelled to come to this board rather than use the rfc template because the Pakistani militant editors kept removing it from the article talk page.Underhumor (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Switzerland: biased information of science part.
The science part is full of bias and misleading in the way it is written. It also did claim (before my edit) that Einstein did write his "General Theory of Relativity (1916)" in Bern, while it was the "Special Relativity (1905)" he did write in Bern. In his early days in Berlin, Einstein postulated that the correct interpretation of the special theory of relativity must also furnish a theory of gravitation and in 1916 he published his paper on the general theory of relativity. In 1921 he received the Nobel Prize for his 1916 publication, while being a German citizen, researching, teaching and living in Germany. (see: www.Nobelprize.org - http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html).

The current source used in the article: "Einstein tops list of leading Swiss - swissinfo.ch", should be removed, as it is full of wrong & bias information. (Wrong theory, wrong date for Nobel Prize, wrong curriculum vitae & citizenship, etc.)--IIIraute (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion page? I said your correction was ok, and the actual sentence is "world-famous physicist Albert Einstein in the field of physics who developed his Special relativity while working in Bern." mge o talk 12:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The sentence still says: "Many Nobel prizes were awarded to Swiss scientists, for example to the world-famous physicist Albert Einstein in the field of physics who developed his Special relativity while working in Bern.". You removed the "German-born", the citation from "www.nobelprize.org" and at the end of the sentence is still this biased "swissinfo.ch" reference.--IIIraute (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not remove anything, I only reverted your edit for the reasons explained on the talk page. mge o  talk 13:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And therefore you removed repeatedly well sourced information (3RR warning). The reference you inserted is simply wrong, revisionist and of no academical value. The source claims that he was of Swiss nationality when receiving the Nobel Price, that he received the price in 1922, as well as that he did develop his 1916 publication for which he received the price in Bern. All wrong!--IIIraute (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Einstein received his Nobel prize in 1922, he was Swiss since 1901. This can be verified in the wiki articles. mge o  talk 14:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weird though, that The Official Web Site of the Nobel Price says 1921. Maybe it was given to him in 1922 - but he got the 1921 Nobel Price for Physics. He had left Switzerland for good and regained German citizenship - under German law in 1914 he therefore lost his Swiss citizenship (that he kept it is a myth). Wikipedia articles do NOT verify anything! Einstein developed and published his theory of gravitation in 1916, being the Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Physical Institute and Professor in the University of Berlin - in German, in Germany, being a German citizen. In 1921 he received the Nobel Prize for his 1916 publication, as a German citizen, researching, teaching and living in Germany until he left for the United States.--IIIraute (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * He received his nobel prize in 1922 although it was called the "1921 Nobel Prize". The official website nowhere says he lost his Swiss citizenship. mge o  talk 15:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

spanish civil war
In reading about your orginization, you admit to being left leaning. That's ok but atleast tell the truth.In your article about the Spanish Civil War, you stated that the loyalist side was a democratic govt. Since when does a democratic govt. do away with freedom of speech,press and assembly. THEY Also closed the Catholic churches and schools.One of the factions in the loyalist coalition was the anarchist,known for their freedom loving principles. 17:04, March 22, 2012 98.204.240.135


 * First, if you want to indent a paragraph, do so by placing a colon before the first word. Doing so without on willmalform the paragraph, which you might've seen if you checked your message after you saved it.


 * Also, please make sure to sign your messages, so others know who they're talking to. You can do this by typing four tildes ~ at the end of them, which will also automatically time-stamp them. :-)


 * Lastly, where does Wikipedia "admit to being left-leaning"? Nightscream (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To answer your question about democratic governments, the word "democratic" refers to the means by which the government makes its decisions, not what thy do with their power once they have it. If the majority decides to do away with freedoms, then that decision was arrived at "democratically."  Democratic and Free are not synonyms.  On the other side, England has been more or less "free" (in that individuals had certain freedoms) since the time of Elizabeth I, but only in the last 150 years has been "democratic" (in that the government has been by the people rather than by the monarch).  Even the United States is, technically, a Republic (government by representatives) rather than a Democracy (government directly by the people).  I don't know much about Civil War era Spain, but I have no trouble believing that they had a democratic government that denied all those freedoms, closed churches, etc. Listmeister (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat
We are having a content dispute regarding the following 2 semi-related sections,(hereand here), of the talk page. These are in reference to inserting a section into the article concerning whether or not Prem Rawat has ever claimed he was God. At least one editor thinks that this has never been the case, as most of the quotations from Rawat say "Lord" or something other than "God" specifically. He feels that these are misconstrued Indian religious beliefs and that the use of the word "Lord" is being used in a sense that is not the same as "God", even though the evidence that has been provided was published by Prem Rawat's own organizations. We also have solid evidence that he has also said "I am not God" at other times (and that point is not in dispute). It doesn't seem possible to craft any kind of edit if the basic premise is completely rejected to begin with. Comments? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 06:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify since I am referred to above as "one editor", Maelefique has been a little disingenuous. It isn't just my opinion that Rawat has never claimed to be God, the Rawat article has 141 sources and more than 50 references and none of them say that Rawat has ever claimed to be God (and it's not the sort of thing you'd forget to mention when writing about him). And I don't feel Rawat's comments are generally "misconstrued", most people understand the difference between a Lord and a God. And finally Maelefique's sentence - "We also have solid evidence that he has also said "I am not God" at other times" implies that at other times he HAS said "I am God". Rawat has made it absolutely clear that he isn't, couldn't be and wouldn't want to be God. As Rawat said in 1971 when he first came to the West "God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk". Nothing has changed.Momento (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This confusion has been going on ever since Rawat left India. His basic statement: I can show you God, is based on his ability or gift to supply a method to find something in oneself that can, by individual experience, be callen God, if you have the need to call it any name. This ability, and only this, qualifies him to be 'Guru Maharaji' in a certain Indian tradition, or 'Perfect Master'. When he talks about God, he is referring to that experience, not to the God of religions, who has to be mentally believed in, otherwise you go to hell. It collides in many ways with the differing concepts of God in different human societies, especially in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Same thing happened to Jesus Christ when interrogated by Pilate, or questioned by the Jews, and still is an unsolved major problem for religions outside of Christianity: Was Jesus God? He said: I and the Father are one. But then e.g. he could be crucified, and, of course, God cannot be crucified. Maybe that is what Iskariot thought. So, before jumping to any knee-jerk opinions, I would advise anyone to take a closer look at the matter. Most of the confusion seems to be a conflict of words, like claiming A = B, when you neither know A nor B, and everybody just has an opinion on their meaning. It is just as meaningless as a statement A does not equal B. Indian culture is traditionally more differentiated concerning this subject, everybody seems familiar with what a Guru is for. In our culture it leads invariably to a confusion of words. I recommend Prof. Ron Geaves's papers on this subject, who set the benchmark for expertise in conflicting oriental and western religious views. Remember: The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best -- and therefore never scrutinize or question. -Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, biologist, author (1941-2002) --Rainer P. (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * to add my 2 pence to it, i recommend to read www.ex-premie.org/papers/mastergod.htm, though this may not be a site to consider as a source, it is an excellent place to inform you about it has been and how complicated it may be to free Rawat fom those claims Surdas (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

People, this is a request for comment, not another place to discuss it. I've asked for someone to read what we've written, I don't think we need to re-write it to make them read it twice. In retrospect, this RFC could have been shortened to "Please read these two sections, (here and here), and place a comment" or something similar. I don't think we require more verbiage here, everyone has done a good job of explaining their position on the talk page already. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 14:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

How to organize the fixing of a common error?
I have fixed over the years hundreds of erroneous articles across many topics (though mainly history and technology) where the writers have used the term 'Russian' where 'Soviet' was actually meant. My changing of this should be uncontroversial, since it's a pretty clear cut case of historical fact (for example, that references to the "Russian Air Force" in World War 2 or the "Russian Space Program" during the 1960s are factually incorrect - there were simply no such things at the time). Remarkably, I find my changes undone quite often. Even though I do put a note about this on the talk page sometimes, I suspect that a lot of these 'undos' are due to genuine ignorance. How do I use the wikipedia system to create a single page that lets people know of the difference and why its important and give guides for proper usage? Ideally, this would be joined with some sort of banner that can be used on the 'talk' page of affected articles. There are likely to be between 2,000 to 10,000 such incorrect usages of the term 'Russian' in English Wikipedia today and probably considerably more, proportionally speaking, in several non-English versions. About 1/2 to 2/3 of the pages that I look at that could have this error, do.
 * I suggest that you raise the issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia, which is the discussion board for editors interested in Russian topics. I notice that there is also a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soviet Union, but that appears to be sleeping. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)