Talk:Ben and Arthur
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 June 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
This is one of the worst articles I've ever read, full of information that's not relevant and riddled with errors. Also, not enough sources. This needs a major rework. --68.193.246.47 (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yup. I cleaned it up a little bit just now but it still needs a lot of work. --DearPrudence (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did a bit of clean up as this page is still just kind of out there. I get that the movie has been panned by most everyone that has seen it, but we need to stick to the facts. Things like accusing the filmmaker of setting up fake accounts to praise his own film (on IMDb I presume) is something that needs a source straight away. The mentions of crap reviews on sites like Amazon don't need to be here either. They're not notable and don't belong on Wikipedia. Neither does the copy-and-pasted-from-IMDb- bio of the filmmaker that was slyly stuck in at the end of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.26.184 (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Depiction of Christianity section edit
I have removed this section several times because I believe it to be in clear violation of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. However it seems that 209.34.51.198 wants to keep adding it back so I guess a consensus needs to be reached regarding its inclusion. I don't think the section should be added back yet again because of the original research aspects and the fact that no reliable sources can be found to back up any of the content given (I'm pretty certain newadvent.org is not a reliable source). Unless there's a reliable source that goes into great depth about this terrible, terrible movie and the artistic license it took regarding religion (among other things), I don't believe the section should remain in. 65.71.124.104 (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm very confused. I provided numerous sources documenting normative Catholic theology (and in some instances mainstream Christian theology). Considering that we're dealing with theological matters, what's wrong with a webpage that hosts documentation cataloging Church canon? Newadvent.org may host opinion pieces but it also hosts third-party documents about Catholic dogma, which I cited. In addition, I provided links to several other webpages which give in depth theological discussions of the topics at hand-- two on the disparity between karma and Christianity, another on the absence of nude baptism in the Bible. You yourself address in your previous statement that the film takes considerable artistic license with its depiction of Catholicism. I believe the impetus falls on you to explain why an article section with numerous citations applicable to the topic at hand should be removed.209.34.51.198 (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Further, it does little good to debate a segment that's absent from the present article. Until good reason is given for why a cited segment should be removed, I believe it should stay in the article and be readily accessible by other users.209.34.51.198 (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- And, as for the "undue" allegation-- the entire plot of the movie revolves around the fictional version of Catholicism that the director has invented. The main action of the movie begins when Victor is excommunicated from his church for his brother's homosexuality-- which is not an excommunicable offense. The climax of the movie revolves around the nude/forced Baptism, neither of which are present in Catholic theology. It's rather analagous to a straight-faced anti-slavery movie being predicated on the idea that plantation owners were harvesting the organs of their slaves and selling them to the Canadian government to be turned into whisky. The idea is completely absurd and contrary to historical fact, but if it weren't for the fabricated depiction, there'd be no movie. Such is the case with Ben and Arthur.209.34.51.198 (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please read WP:TALK to see how to properly format your responses to other users. I went ahead and indented your previous statements according to talk page guidelines. Next, WP:BURDEN explicitly states that it's up to you (ie the person who wants the content included) to provide policy supported reasons as to why the content belong in the context of an encyclopedia. In short, it's not up to me to prove why the content should NOT be there. It's also rather disingenuous to say that you provided "numerous" references to support the content because you initially did no such thing which is why I reverted you several times. The only time you added more than one reference was next to the last time that you added the content back [1]. I also stated rather plainly that newadvent.org is not a reliable source and no other third party sources can be found that point out what you (and evidently only you) believe to be a huge issue with this movie. To state it very plainly, unless a notable reviewer or newspaper wrote an article about this very issue about this very movie, I believe the content violates WP:UNDUE and should be removed. Religion is too subject to interpretation (ie WP:OR) to devote an entire section to this, especially on an article about a bad movie. 65.71.124.104 (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- I concur that this section goes against Wikipedia's policy of no original research. It is providing analysis where there was none to be had before. If we are to have a section, we need to find reliable sources that discuss the film's Christian elements. We cannot take sources otherwise unrelated to the film and apply them to the article about the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- You feel that it is not a reliable source; why? The pages of that website I've used as cites are reproductions of established Catholic canon/dogma, and not anyone's opinions or personal interpretations; they are reproductions of theological points argued over and settled upon by church heads over hundreds of years.
- I concur that this section goes against Wikipedia's policy of no original research. It is providing analysis where there was none to be had before. If we are to have a section, we need to find reliable sources that discuss the film's Christian elements. We cannot take sources otherwise unrelated to the film and apply them to the article about the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please read WP:TALK to see how to properly format your responses to other users. I went ahead and indented your previous statements according to talk page guidelines. Next, WP:BURDEN explicitly states that it's up to you (ie the person who wants the content included) to provide policy supported reasons as to why the content belong in the context of an encyclopedia. In short, it's not up to me to prove why the content should NOT be there. It's also rather disingenuous to say that you provided "numerous" references to support the content because you initially did no such thing which is why I reverted you several times. The only time you added more than one reference was next to the last time that you added the content back [1]. I also stated rather plainly that newadvent.org is not a reliable source and no other third party sources can be found that point out what you (and evidently only you) believe to be a huge issue with this movie. To state it very plainly, unless a notable reviewer or newspaper wrote an article about this very issue about this very movie, I believe the content violates WP:UNDUE and should be removed. Religion is too subject to interpretation (ie WP:OR) to devote an entire section to this, especially on an article about a bad movie. 65.71.124.104 (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- And, as for the "undue" allegation-- the entire plot of the movie revolves around the fictional version of Catholicism that the director has invented. The main action of the movie begins when Victor is excommunicated from his church for his brother's homosexuality-- which is not an excommunicable offense. The climax of the movie revolves around the nude/forced Baptism, neither of which are present in Catholic theology. It's rather analagous to a straight-faced anti-slavery movie being predicated on the idea that plantation owners were harvesting the organs of their slaves and selling them to the Canadian government to be turned into whisky. The idea is completely absurd and contrary to historical fact, but if it weren't for the fabricated depiction, there'd be no movie. Such is the case with Ben and Arthur.209.34.51.198 (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Plenty of other bad movies have sections dedicated to their errors; see "Plan 9" for a goofs section cited entirely by the IMDB page for Goofs.
- The point of contention here seems to be not that I've provided cites for the errors, but not for a page that actually states the errors exist. Will we accept the IMDB goofs page as the Plan 9 editors apparently have? Or would I need to create a page specifically mentioning these errors, cite it with the sources here, and then link it along with the original cites and the IMDB page?209.34.51.198 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Policy says, "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." The sources you are using may be appropriate for general topics about Christianity, but they do not discuss this film. My brief research shows that there are not really any such sources; you are more likely to find sources for mainstream films like The Last Temptation of Christ, for which there are sources directly discussing the Christian elements. As for Plan 9, arguing that "other stuff exists" is not appropriate. I can point you to a lousy article that takes the wrong approach with the subject matter, but it does not justify my copying that approach. Reviewed articles about religion, history, etc. use reliable sources that analyze the film directly and evaluate its elements. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really see it as being out of context here; the film presents X behavior as being in line with Catholic theology, and the sources I've cited demonstrate that it's not by showing the theological positions held by the church on these topics. Without this section, it's possible for a reader to believe that the film gives a fair depiction of Catholic dogma. Would it be more acceptable if the cites were incorporated into the plot summary at appropriate points?209.34.51.198 (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is out of context, though. None of the sources are talking about the film itself. The section cannot belong at all. We cannot generate coverage where there has not been any. Major films about Christianity will be well-analyzed, where minor ones will not, and we cannot fill the gap with our own original research. The best we can do here is to have a "See also" section that links to Christian elements so readers can read about them on their own. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. Without sources specifically discussing the errors in the film, it is original research. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is out of context, though. None of the sources are talking about the film itself. The section cannot belong at all. We cannot generate coverage where there has not been any. Major films about Christianity will be well-analyzed, where minor ones will not, and we cannot fill the gap with our own original research. The best we can do here is to have a "See also" section that links to Christian elements so readers can read about them on their own. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really see it as being out of context here; the film presents X behavior as being in line with Catholic theology, and the sources I've cited demonstrate that it's not by showing the theological positions held by the church on these topics. Without this section, it's possible for a reader to believe that the film gives a fair depiction of Catholic dogma. Would it be more acceptable if the cites were incorporated into the plot summary at appropriate points?209.34.51.198 (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Policy says, "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." The sources you are using may be appropriate for general topics about Christianity, but they do not discuss this film. My brief research shows that there are not really any such sources; you are more likely to find sources for mainstream films like The Last Temptation of Christ, for which there are sources directly discussing the Christian elements. As for Plan 9, arguing that "other stuff exists" is not appropriate. I can point you to a lousy article that takes the wrong approach with the subject matter, but it does not justify my copying that approach. Reviewed articles about religion, history, etc. use reliable sources that analyze the film directly and evaluate its elements. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Ben and Arthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804081440/http://www.angelfire.com:80/falcon/benandarthur/ to http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/benandarthur/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804081440/http://www.angelfire.com:80/falcon/benandarthur/ to http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/benandarthur/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804081445/http://www.angelfire.com:80/falcon/benandarthur/moviescript/script.html to http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/benandarthur/moviescript/script.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804081440/http://www.angelfire.com:80/falcon/benandarthur/ to http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/benandarthur/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804081440/http://www.angelfire.com:80/falcon/benandarthur/ to http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/benandarthur/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100823061214/http://insert-disc.com:80/2010/08/16/i-dont-even-ben-arthur/ to http://insert-disc.com/2010/08/16/i-dont-even-ben-arthur/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)