[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal‎ | Cases
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleThe Founding of a Republic
StatusClosed
Request date08:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Requesting partyUnknown
Mediator(s)User:Ollie Garkey
CommentIt's dead, Jim.

Request details

edit

Where is the dispute?

edit

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


Who is involved?

edit

Just a list of the users involved. For example:

What is the dispute?

edit

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; lit. '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 word "propaganda" 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. The description of "propaganda" are used in major media including BBC, ABC (Australia) and Associated Press. But some Chinese editors have determined to remove the description of "propaganda film" from the LEDE. So far no one has challenged the references in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard so may not be an issue of the sources reliability. Number of rewording suggestions have been put forward (see below).

Reference

edit
  1. ^ "Chinese blockbuster criticised as propaganda". 7pm ABC News (Australia), New South Wales, Australia. September 21, 2009. Presented by ABC corespondent Steven MacDonald in Beijing, partial transcript: "The film is part of the built up to next months 60th Anniversary celebration, marking the People's Repbulic, there has been some criticism that is a throw back to old style propaganda"; "The film's message is fairly black-&-white: the Communists had no choice but to go to war with the Nationalists. Former leader Chairman Mao is portrayed as a caring uncle looking after his people, some has criticize it is nothing more than a propaganda design to wipe up national sentiments."
  2. ^ Lee, Min (October 6, 2009), "Propaganda film to break record", Associated Press, via San Francisco Chronicle - SFGate, retrieved 2009-10-16{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Opening paragraph reads: "China's star-studded propaganda blockbuster that marks 60 years of communist rule is on track to match the country's box office record set by the Hollywood film "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" in July..."
  3. ^ Sommerville, Quentin (October 2, 2009), "Communist China's founding lauded in film", BBC news, retrieved 2009-10-16{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Second paragraph reads "The Founding of a Republic, a new film from the state-owned China Film Group, is a propaganda epic that includes almost all the biggest names in Chinese film."
  4. ^ "Taiwan Says it won't censor China propaganda film". Retrieved 2009-09-28.
  5. ^ Foster, Peter (2009-09-17). "Epic film The Founding of a Republic marks 60 years of Chinese Communism". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-09-24.

What would you like to change about this?

edit

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

How do you think we can help?

edit

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.

Mediator notes

edit

While not formally opening this case, at least yet, I have to concur with an opinion that Rjang gave on the talk page. There is no need for Wikipedia to take a position on every matter in the world. It is irrefutable that the grass is green, the sun is hot and the Pope is a Catholic, so we can state as such. When situations like this one arise, when there are multiple, equally valid viewpoints, we either omit all of them, or mention each. From what I see, the latter would maybe not be the most ideal solution, but would be one we can work with. Perhaps something along the lines of this would work.


This sort of solution is a compromise, but I figure it's a solution that should keep everyone happy. Remember, NPOV in a nutshell, Wikipedia's purpose is to present the viewpoints of reliable sources, and balance them as appropriate. I hope this helps somewhat. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One question, can we decide now what to insert into the [insert film type]? Historical film is definitely one that goes into those brackets. Propaganda film? Should it be in the LEDE? _LDS (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The [insert film type] is a blank field, and is up to the editors (all of you) to edit at your discretion. All of it is for discretion, obviously, but consider it a framework. In past mediations I've conducted, some of the best solutions have been to present each perspective, ie, historical film, epic film, propaganda film etc, with 2 or 3 references beside each. See if that works. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 08:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion, hopefully it'll work. I'll address my question above to 李博杰, Da Vynci and Colipon instead. Well? "Propaganda film" in the LEDE? _LDS (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am more in favour of the current lead section, and still frankly see nothing wrong with it. The film reeks of propaganda, there is no doubt, but I still hold reservations in branding it a "propaganda film" based on labels applied by Western newspapers. If it is a propaganda film, the truth should easily speak for itself when the reader goes through the article. Describing the propaganda aspects and other opinions of film reviewers should be part of a section in the article body called 'Reception'. Colipon+(Talk) 02:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think having most of the 'propaganda' issue mentioned in the Reception section is a good way to go, it's roughly the same approach I took with Not One Less (another film that, while certainly not as controversial as this, also was sometimes accused of being 'propaganda'). The Reception section, by definition, is conducive to that discussion. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess we'll just stick to the current LEDE and discuss the propaganda part in the reception section. We've yet to hear from Da Vynci. If he agrees, I think we can close this case. _LDS (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, is it agreed that "historical drama" is mentioned in the LEDE and "propaganda" is mentioned in a "Reception" section? And if so, what else should be mentioned in the reception section? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

edit

Discussion

edit
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
First of all, it is a undeniable truth that the film is described by major media as "propaganda", so censoring the mention of such description is equally infringing reader's right to know. The mention of propaganda film is NPOV. If readers has the liberty to decide for themselves just like LDS said, then we should have no problem mentioning "...described as propaganda in Western media.[5][6][7][8]" in the opening sentence. We just provide the information with reliable sources and let the reader decide. Da Vynci (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"undeniable truth"? Hardly. The term "propaganda" is a pejorative word with negative connotations, especially when it comes to journalism. Use of the term puts it on the same par as The Eternal Jew, to which it is clearly not, and does not meet NPOV. You have also chosen to ignore the other side. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for LDS's opinion of "propaganda film is POV thing", allow me to reproduce the content on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The phrase is directly supported by media coverage of BBC, ABC Australia and Associated Press. If a piece of info is supported by reliable sources, it is not POV and deserve to be included. Removing those 3 references and the mention of "propaganda film" is a violation of the NPOV principle. Da Vynci (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your questions on the talk page. I mentioned earlier that the term "propaganda film" should be used sparingly, in my opinion, and maybe only in cases of extreme "misuse" of propaganda to achieve certain (undesirable) political objectives. Perhaps my personal definition of propaganda film does not suit your preference. From what I believe, propaganda films are produced as a means of spreading a certain message to influence the audience's thoughts and sway them to support a certain cause, which is usually related to politics. Such films are usually produced in times of conflict. For example, country A is at war with country B. Country A produces a propaganda film to belittle country B and induce its citizens to support their nation in the war. In such a case, I think it'd be appropriate the label the film as a propaganda film. But in the case of The Founding of a Republic, I don't think it's in any form, used as a propaganda tool to influence the Chinese to join a particular cause. Perhaps to instill a stronger sense of national pride, maybe. But that's pretty normal. What's the purpose of certain education systems teaching students to be loyal to their country? Doesn't that count as propaganda? My answer is yes, but there's no need to explicitly state that it's propaganda. This is because that's a "healthy" way of using propaganda and different from the case of The Eternal Jew. _LDS (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed reply, I appreciate u r being clam and reasonable despite it is a somehow heated discussion. Your personal interpretation of what is "propaganda film", and whether certain propaganda is "healthy", or whether it should produced at war could be a great contribution to the propaganda film article. (if you have reference to support your interpretation) But here we are to discuss how can we include all significant views that are supported by reliable reference in to the article in a fair manner. Some people claims it is a Chinese historical film, that's fine, I welcome info to be added into the LEDE if they are referenced. I wouldn't even mind if someone say the film is an "educational" if there are referenced to support that. But when we allow positive description to be added into the article, the description of "propaganda film" made by major media also entitle the same right to be mentioned in the same place where it is described as "historical film", to be fair. Da Vynci (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since the current version just say "Chinese film" and doesn't mention film genre in the 1st sentence, and the word propaganda do appear in the 2nd paragraph of the LEDE. I don't mind to keep it that way and describe the film genre in 2nd paragraph of the LEDE, and move the release info to a "Release" section. Da Vynci (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is propaganda film the genre in this case? The genre is historic film, while it is considered by some parties as of propaganda-based value. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Benlisquare left a message on my talk page, I might as well weight my 2 cents here.

First of all, I agree with User:Da Vynci on the fact that this is a propaganda film given the fact the Chinese has been describing this film as "ethically inspiring", a codename for propaganda. But, given the WP:DECISION principle, I believe this fact does not need to be explicitly stated given the available sources. I believe that by stating this film is commissioned by the Chinese government to mark the 60th anniversary of the People's Republic of China, which is described as "ethically inspiring" should be enough to convince most of the readers that this film is propaganda without resorting to POV warrings.

Second, given the LEDE section can force the readers to draw conclusions even before the readers reach the end of the article, it is in my experience to move any disputed materials out of the LEDE section and sort it out in the body of the article. If we as editors cannot agree on the genre of the film, then it is unfair to force the readers to choose the genre of the film at the introduction of the article.

Thrid, high quality sources does not mean free of error and bias. In disputes like this, all sources, regardless of quality, needs to be examined in tones, themes, main ideas and political alignements and weighted properly before being incorprated into the article. Even though there are a lot of high quality source out there that describes this film as a propaganda film, not examining why these sources describe the film as propaganda in the article is a major offense in WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I propose that we fully state on why those sources consider the film as propaganda before slapping propaganda label. (Added notes: normally in a dispute like this, media sources are not sufficient, academic sources is required)

Finally, this is not a battleground, and only contributions matter here while truth does not matter here. With all the efforts spending on pushing loaded words, maybe the efforts are better spent on working out a Reception section that compares the real history with propaganda to better convince people that this is a propaganda film. The basic working principle of Wikipedia is that if an editor (a.k.a User:Da Vynci) does not spend efforts on examing and expanding his or her POV in the article, if will be ignored no matter how valid it is.

As a new solution, I propose that all reference to the film genre removed in the lead section, and a Reception section added with the following text included:

Political analysis A criticise the film that is a throw back to old style propaganda since the film's message is fairly black and white.[ref] Historian B commented that the film grossly misrepresent history by protraying the Communists had no choice but to go to war with the Nationalists.[ref] Film critic C had found the former leader Chairman Mao is portrayed as a caring uncle looking after his people "appalling",[ref] while dissidents D has criticize it as nothing more than a propaganda design to wipe up national sentiments.[ref]

Jim101 (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Finally I see that someone has managed to come up with a rather persuasive argument to (hopefully) convince Da Vynci. _LDS (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Colipon+(Talk) 21:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Mediation

edit

Hello. I'll be helping mediate this case. Before I ask any general questions, I've got one for Da Vynci: You've stated that you would prefer it if some statement on the film's genre remained in the LEDE, because otherwise "it doesn't allow all significant views that have been published by reliable sources to be represented." How does the article fail to represent these complex significant views if it delegates them to further down in the article? Because of the controversy over definition, might listing the genre within the LEDE cause oversimplification?Ollie Garkey (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Da Vynci has not been on Wikipedia for quite some time (more than a week), as this suggests. Maybe he's busy. _LDS (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How would the mediation proceed without him? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 22:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case I suggest be bold. Let's go with the current consense until Da Vynci comes back and object. We can't let one person holds up the process. Jim101 (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My honest suggestion is to close the mediation and go back to editing the article itself. This should have never come to mediation in the first place. The discussion on this page and on the article discussion page clearly demonstrate that the only objector and disruptive editor is indeed, Da Vynci himself. He finds himself on difficult ground as accusing Ben and I of being some overly dogmatic Communist-nationalists is not advancing his case, noting that numerous neutral, third-party editors have become involved in the topic and have almost uniformly rejected his edits to the article. I will let the record speak for itself. Colipon+(Talk) 23:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jim101. We're not waiting for Da Vynci anymore. I think, it's safe to assume, at the moment, that Da Vynci has backed out from the case. We'll look at it when he's back. Please proceed. _LDS (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solution

edit

Option A: The Founding of a Republic is a Chinese Communists propaganda film[9][10][11][12] released on September 17, 2009 to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party's rise to power...

Option B: "The Founding of a Republic is a Chinese film officially considered as historical epic in the PRC and described as propaganda in Western media.[13][14][15][16]

Option C: "The Founding of a Republic is a Chinese film...

Comment:In my honest opinion, Option C is in violation with the NPOV principle because it doesn't allow all significant views that have been published by reliable sources to be represented. I know the inclusion of description from outside of China may get on some editors' nerves, as editors from China (e.g. Benlisquare and Colipon) don't want criticism to be represented in the article about the grand movie that commemorate the birth of their mother nation. But wikipeida is not here to satisify certain group's POV or polifical aganda, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources must be represented fairly.Da Vynci (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who said I was from China? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase - "editors connected with People's Republic of China by birth or by parental linage". Sorry if I offended you for called you "editor from China". Da Vynci (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who said I was connected with the PRC? I had to pay 15,000RMB for overstaying my visa for one day, and that is a connection? Please. And how is this relevant? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a solution based on option B. It's the most neutral one of the three, but there's room for improvement. I think we can exclude the term "propaganda film" from the introduction. We move the propaganda part (and its supporting references) to the "response" section. What do you think? _LDS (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Colipon+(Talk) 03:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What LDS suggesting is in fact Option C (but marketing it as Option B to avoid having a weak agreement ). Since LDS is suggesting to remove the words "propaganda film" from the opening sentence, the result will be no difference from Option C, which I oppose for the reasons I stated above. Da Vynci (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LDS keep going on and on about how the film genre "propaganda film" is not neutral if placed in the LEDE, but will be ok if placed else where, yet never able to explain why it is so, other than a personal preference. I think it is just not very convincing to remove a well referenced film genre from the LEDE just because some users personally think it is "not neutral". Da Vynci (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask do you have reference, wikipedia policy/guideline that actually support your claim that the phrase "propaganda film" is a non-neutral if placed in the LEDE, but would suddenly become neutral if placed in else where? (Film genre is typically placed in the LEDE, eg Saving Private Ryan, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, even in other propaganda film such as The Eternal Jew and Heimkehr). Thanks ! Da Vynci (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from above to keep conversation coherent) Actually, since the current version just says "Chinese film" and doesn't mention film genre in the 1st sentence, and the word propaganda do appear in the 2nd paragraph of the LEDE (and no one seems to have problem with that). To be fair, I don't mind to keep it that way and describe the film genre (both historical and propaganda WITH the BBC, ABC and AP references) in 2nd paragraph of the LEDE, and move the release info to a "Release" section. I am ok as long as the film genre of "propaganda film" don't get omitted from the LEDE as it is a significant view regarding its genre. Da Vynci (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of the definition of the English word "genre"? War film, historical film, drama, comedy and pornographic film are all film genres, but "propaganda" is a branding, not a genre (and I honestly do not care what the category says. Any user could have placed that category tag.) And don't you play the "everybody says this", since it is blatantly false (All-star epic presents a new face for China - Xinhua), nor should you play the "communist media is not reliable" card either. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've some form of miscommunication here. Firstly, I'm not against your idea of including the term "propaganda film" (pf) in the article at all. I understand that BBC news, ABC News (Australia), Associated Press are all reputable press and they are reliable sources to me. I'm not saying that the term "pf" should be totally censored from the article. That's an "uncivilized" way of doing things. I'm trying to help you people reach a compromise with my suggestion above. I think it's reasonable. The views of those who think that The Founding of a Republic is a pf are represented, maybe not in the LEDE, but at least they have a say. No offense to you, 李博杰, but please cool down. Your responses carry a very strong "anti-Da Vynci" tone. _LDS (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I wouldn't mind if we all just backed out of the debate and let LDS take free rein on this. Emotionally invested parties will fight a rather unproductive, time-consuming edit war which benefits no one. It's best to just let a neutral party, such as LDS, step in and craft a new revision without further interference. Colipon+(Talk) 12:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the current LEDE is fine. Da Vynci can create the response section and include the propaganda part in that section, supported by his references. I think he knows his work better than any one of us here, so we should leave that to him. Hopefully, everyone will be satisfied with that arrangement (i.e. my suggestion above). _LDS (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So Colipon has already mentioned above that he agrees with my suggestion. What do 李博杰 and Da Vynci think? _LDS (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should wait for mediators' mediation for the very least, since that's the reason we came here. I am not comfortable with the film genre (propaganda film) being completely removed from the LEDE as it present a significant view directly supported by multiple reliable sources ( also see reasons I provided above). LDS maybe a more polite (which I apprecaite) than Belisquare and Colipon, but after the polite words he essentially propelling Option C yet unable to provide convincing reason (e.g. when I questioned the rationale for omitting the "propaganda film" description used in major media in the LEDE here, no reply).
Belisquare and Colipon's opinion shouldn't be given too much weight here as their edits clearly violated Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Vandalism and where they blanked references repeatedly. (probably influenced by their national pride? or for whatever other reasons) I am fine with creating a "Criticism" section when there are enough infomation, but I don't see what reason we should completely remove the film genre description used by major media from LEDE.Da Vynci (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
QUOTE: "Belisquare and Colipon's opinion shouldn't be given too much weight here" - One word. WP:PILLAR. (With particular focus on the first sentence of the third pillar.) We can't have a valid opinion? Says who? 你老几啊你？你大爷吗？ Oh, and you aren't partisan? Tu quoque? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been described as "propaganda" for the Communist Party.

Please read the second sentence in the second paragraph of the current LEDE. There is some mention of the film being propagandist and it has a supporting reference here. When I said earlier that the current LEDE appears fine to me, it was because I saw that the LEDE already gave some mention to the film being propagandist. Perhaps you may not have noticed that. I think you've misinterpreted my intention in making the fourth suggestion above, and so have I misunderstood your idea of option C. What I thought option C to be, is that it omits the term "pf" from the LEDE and the entire article completely. But now, I think I know what your impression of option C was. Correct me if I'm wrong. What you think option C should be like, is that the term "pf" is removed only from the LEDE. Is that true? This makes my suggestion similar to your option C, when I thought my suggestion was neither of the three options. I don't think I can give you a satisfactory answer to your question on why the term "pf" should not appear in the LEDE. Maybe the mediator can help?

I think you people should stop all the personal attacks on each other, especially to Da Vynci and 李博杰. Apparently, Da Vynci had ignored my previous request on the talk page to stop the cross-fire there. I think that's enough. _LDS (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think, if the mediation fails, we'll have to bring the case up to the Arbitration Committee. _LDS (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to cease the dispute on the article talk page only if such a move is reciprocated by all parties. As a human being I reserve my right to tit for tat; don't expect me to be in a good mood otherwise. Da Vynci's earlier political comment simply, and I apologise for telling my feelings, pisses me off. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All involved parties should stop hurling abuse at each other from now on. Let's be more civilized. 李博杰 and Colipon have already expressed their agreement with my proposal, so now it's only Da Vynci who disagrees. Da Vynci has provided his reasons for disagreeing with my proposal above but I'm afraid I can't convince him. Perhaps 李博杰 and Colipon can help me persuade him? 请大家冷静。 _LDS (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt any of us is capable of convincing him at this point, honestly. If he can't even listen to an uninvolved third party editor, how can he listen to us nationalist-communist dogs? Until a mediator comes into the scene here I'll try to stay away from editing that article. Colipon+(Talk) 10:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution is option C given my arguments in the disscussion section. NPOV is better than No POV, which is in turn better than POV. Jim101 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ here
  2. ^ here
  3. ^ here
  4. ^ here
  5. ^ here
  6. ^ here
  7. ^ here
  8. ^ here
  9. ^ here
  10. ^ here
  11. ^ here
  12. ^ here
  13. ^ here
  14. ^ here
  15. ^ here
  16. ^ here
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-16/The_Founding_of_a_Republic&oldid=1102795312"