Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-16/The Founding of a Republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	The Founding of a Republic
Status	new
Case Opened	08:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Parties involved
Mediator(s)
Comment

Contents 1 Request details 1.1 Where is the dispute? 1.2 Who is involved? 1.3 What is the dispute? 2 Reference 2.1 What would you like to change about this? 2.2 How do you think we can help? 2.3 Mediator notes 2.4 Administrative notes 2.5 Discussion

[edit] Request details

[edit] Where is the dispute?

The Founding of a Republic
Talk:The Founding of a Republic

[edit] Who is involved?

Just a list of the users involved. For example:

• User:Aegipan
• User:Benlisquare
• User:Colipon
• User:Da Vynci
• User:Rjanag (sysop; only on talk page)
• User:Lonelydarksky (only on talk page)

[edit] What is the dispute?

In article The Founding of a Republic, the phrase "propaganda film" along with all the references from BBC news, ABC News (Australia), Associated Press were removed repeatedly from number of users.

The Founding of a Republic (simplified Chinese: 建国大业; traditional Chinese: 建國大業; pinyin: Jiàngúo dàyè; literally "The Great Cause of Founding a Country") is a People's Republic of China propaganda film ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} released on September 17, 2009 to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party's rise to power, and the founding of the People's Republic of China;^[5] the film was commissioned by China's film regulator and made by the state-owned China Film Group (CFG) to mark the anniversary. The film was directed by Huang Jianxin and China Film Group head Han Sanping.

1st time, Aegipan removed it;

2nd time, Colipon removed it

3rd time, Benlisquare removed it

4th time, Benlisquare removed it

5th time, Benlisquare removed it

Colipon added the info back but omitted all the reference.

I tried to warned those users of vandalism, and attempt to restore the reference. I asked in the talk page Is there any other reason why the references must be removed and got accused of being POV. I am not sure how I could be POV when all I did was adding the phrase "propaganda film" (the exact same description were used in the multiple reference of BBC, ABC (Australia) and Associated Press. I asked in the talk page, if they have problem with the references we can well submit enquiry in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to verify their reliablity, but no one seems want to submit such enquiry.

[edit] Reference

[edit] What would you like to change about this?

Is there a way to protect references from getting removed for no valid reason?

[edit] How do you think we can help?

To encourage users to edit base on direct support of reliable references. If users want to challenge certain referenced phrase or statement in the article, they should provide referenced material to support their claim, not just delete the phrase or statement from the article along with its references.

[edit] Mediator notes

[edit] Administrative notes

[edit] Discussion

• Comment: Simply put, I question how this constitutes vandalism. Just refer to the arguments provided on the talk page - in my opinion I honestly think that Da Vynci is simply using the removal of references as an excuse to push unnecessary POV. That is all I have to say; I may not be available for the next few days, due to examinations. Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • A few questions for User:Da Vynci: QUOTE: "I tried to warned those users of vandalism" - please define what you mean by vandalism, in the context of what the said users have done. QUOTE: "I asked in the talk page..." - Why are you only referring to the latter portion of the argument? Are you specifically ignoring what I have asked you earlier on? And if so, why are you avoiding it? QUOTE: "all I did was adding the phrase "propaganda film" - Are you unaware that I and other editors, including an admin, have notified to you numerous times that the word "propaganda" is a loaded word? Thanks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think first of all user 李博杰 should probably sign ur comment using your real username (Benlisquare), as not everyone's computer can render foreign character correctly, and they may not know 李博杰 is Benlisquare . Thanks!Da Vynci (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Benlisquare In Types of vandalism, under "blanking" it states "... referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." I am not sure if the words is universally considered as Loaded language ^{[citation needed]}, but "propaganda film" is definitely a film genre (listed in the P section). I restored the references from BBC, ABC Australia and Associated Press, those sources all describes the film as a "propaganda film", and those reference are consider reliable sources. Yet Benlisquare and 2 other aforementioned users blanked the references again and again. I, too, maybe unavailable for the following week due to sickness. Thanks! Da Vynci (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia's cornerstone policy, WP:NPOV, is violated with User Da Vynci's revision, it's quite simple. In the neutral revision, it is still presented that the film has been "described as propaganda". Even if all of the credible media sources in the world say the film is propaganda, Wikipedia still has to maintain a neutral tone. Just like in the case of the Tiananamen Square Massacre. Almost all credible media sources call it a massacre, yet Wikipedia calls it a "protest". Why? NPOV. The most Wikipedia has to do is say that the event has been "described as a massacre". Colipon+(Talk) 10:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Reply to Colipon: quote from the opening sentence of other film articles:

The Eternal Jew is a 1940 antisemitic German Nazi propaganda film...;

Heimkehr is a 1941 German anti-Polish propaganda film...;

Saving Private Ryan is a 1998 American war film...;

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is a 1982 American science fiction film...

The Terminal is a 2004 comedy-drama film..., etc.

All the above films seem have neutral tone, and all of them just describe the film genre directly, not Colipon's version of "described as". Actually, I can't find any film article open with the sentence this way, even the controversial filmes such as Natural Born Killers, I can't help but suspect Colipon is trying to cloud the fact by using a soft language in the name of NPOV. Da Vynci (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

But if it could lead to a solution, I can settle with opening sentence of "The Founding of a Republic is a Chinese film officially considered as historical epic in the PRC but described as propaganda in Western media.^[1][2][3][4]"Da Vynci (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not quite ready to pick up this case. But a word of advice: if it's documented to be a propaganda film within the article, there's no need to say it's propaganda. Inference alone is a powerful thing. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Whether it's a propaganda film or not, it's ultimately a POV thing. Readers reserve the liberty to decide for themselves to see it as propaganda or not. Labeling it as a propaganda film might be an infringement on that right. _LDS (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)