Talk:The Founding of a Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Online polling[edit]

The VeryCD online polling had been harmonized only 2 days into the movie's national release, was it because of the miserable rating(was 2.2 when I saw it)? Is it not a joke when over 100 big time movie stars sweat it out for weeks, and the end product is being called "rubbbish"? RFI should be a reliable source.

Arilang talk 10:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have already once removed the section about VeryCD, on the grounds that it is a)unreliable, and b) that criticism has been expunged. I don't think it's desirable or encyclopaedic to keep spamming the article with links to community reviews from unreliable sources (including imdb). If we had a RS (or authoritative blogs like 'Shanghaiist') commenting on such online opinions, they can probably be included. Right now, w have to be content with major sources labelling it as 'propaganda', as if we didn't know that already. We can of course include reviews from HK, Taiwan and Western media as and when they are published.

    Yes, the reality is that CFC has once again used its clout to secure the cooperation of these big names. It's not as if they had to recruit and pay Brangelina at their going rates. I'm not being entirely cynical in saying that stars' payroll is kept low by the hanging threat of being blackballed from all future acting assignments. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question on whether VeryCD is RS or not should be a subject of discussion on WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, that said, if Radio France International care to report that news item(Chinese:on VeryCD...15日晚间赫然显示，在2600多人的评分中，有超过2500人将《建党伟业》归之为“垃圾”级别，最终得分为2.3分), there is no reason to treat it as a spam and label it as unreliable. Arilang talk 02:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make a post at RS/N, by all means. I have no problem the RFI being mentioned in the article citing VeryCD, but it is a primary source, and ought not to be cited directly. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be primary source on VeryCD, but it is secondary source when it turns up on Radio France International. Arilang talk 03:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. RFI is a secondary source. Nothing we do transforms a primary source into a secondary one; Thus when RFI uses it, we can cite RFI about that reporting. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFI report on 2011年 6月 16日: 《建党伟业》首日公映即遭遇如潮恶评 :在另一个影视网站verycd上，15日晚间赫然显示，在2600多人的评分中，有超过2500人将《建党伟业》归之为“垃圾”级别，最终得分为2.3分，还不及2009年张艺谋执导的口碑欠佳的《三枪拍案惊奇》（3.8分）。http://www.chinese.rfi.fr/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD/20110616-%E3%80%8A%E5%BB%BA%E5%85%9A%E4%BC%9F%E4%B8%9A%E3%80%8B%E9%A6%96%E6%97%A5%E5%85%AC%E6%98%A0%E5%8D%B3%E9%81%AD%E9%81%87%E5%A6%82%E6%BD%AE%E6%81%B6%E8%AF%84

Arilang talk 04:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VeryCD is not a reliable source; this is not disputable, this is fact. We can stop arguing over this now. If you do dispute this, then I do question the quality of your long-time stay at Wikipedia. You cannot use anything like that as a citation, as that would clearly be WP:OR. You cannot use BBSes. You cannot use IMDB, which is a user-content website. VeryCD is a piracy website anyway, and I've seen cases before when people have posted links to The Pirate Bay URL pages and have gotten oversighted and banned without warning; direct links to piracy websites should never be placed on Wikipedia. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User Benlisquare, Ohconfucius and me were discussing whether Radio France International is RS or not, and the question of whether VeryCD is RS or not shall be discussed on WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You seems to have gone off topic. Arilang talk 08:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Akin to Voice of America, RFI is the mouthpiece of the French Government. But I assume that no matter what I say, it won't get processed in your mind, given that I recall having a heated discussion with you a month ago where you still believe that VOA is a "lol neutral sauce xD". I'm not even going to bother explaining anything to you this time, it's not worth my effort. Given my history with you, and my interpretation of how stubborn you can be, I'd rather be able to preserve my Adenosine triphosphate stores. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whey are we still here, then, instead of thrashing it out on RS/N? What were you trying to prove with the contents of the {{quotation}} box? I think we're done here. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and just so I could let it out, Jesus **French christ, the film has only been out for two **French days. At least wait two weeks before looking around for reviews. And no, **sugar on the internet is not hot **sugar, it's cold and reek **sugar, because **sugar like this is always subject to trolling. Wait for the New York Times or some **sugar. And yes, I mad. (inb4 my comment gets removed by someone ten times more butthurt than I currently am) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC) - comment modified because Arilang1234 is getting upset. Benlisquare 08:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, let's have some self-restraint here. I don't wish to see here another conflict similar to what happened at Talk:The Founding of a Republic nearly a year and a half ago. Why are these so-called Chinese propaganda films always targets for attacks by people who display anti-CCP characteristics? Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) contact me (聯絡) 08:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I for one would prefer if a film just be detailed as a film, and don't give a bat's spleen about the politics behind it. But it seems that inevitably such things will be discussed, given that it is a state-made film. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a normal practice for user to spell out the F words twice, the S words 5 times, in a short sentence, do we really need this kind of language here on wikipedia? Arilang talk 08:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not normal on Wikipedia, but neither is your long-term stubbornness. also lol kids on da internet -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need me to tell you that trolls only play up if you feed them. The solution has to be to deny recognition. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Film credits and infobox details[edit]

I've found the film credits, which details the directors, editors, script writers, music producers, etc etc:

I however have no idea on how to properly format the reference for the infobox. Should a footnotes section be made within the reference, akin to the infobox found at, say, Second Sino-Japanese War? I'd prefer not to have every single name reffed with the same reference, as that would become quite messy. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add the details to the infobox (without <ref></ref>) and then add the link to the "References" section? Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) contact me (聯絡) 08:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Founding_of_a_Party&oldid=1207280102"