Talk:Wolf Warrior 2

Untitled

"Lamanla infected bodies"? What's this? An invention of the movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neils51 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal explained

I recently removed some reviews from the "critical reception" of this article. Here are my explanations.

1. These reviews I removed are all negative ones and were all added by 安眠3 who has been good at adding negative content which vilifies China and its government unselectively, e.g.1, 2, 3 and others.
2. By "critical reception", we mean this section should include film critics's reception on this film. Nevertheless, 安眠3 even added "Yin Shanshan, a lecturer"'s irrational and biased review to this section.
3. Both NYT and Irish times's reviews even don't comment on the film itself. Conversely, the NYT review focuses on its "individualist personal quest" and asserts the film downplaying "the Communist Party in favor of patriotism and defending Chinese people and Chinese interests all over the world". In terms of the Irish times one, it's more laughable. This reviews concentrates on the film's reflection of so-called "China's thirst for expanding of its military forces aboard". Does this have anything to do with a film REVIEW which is supposed to be dedicated to one film's visual effects, the ability to tell stories, actors' performance and others.

--Whaterss (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Whaterss, this is just another example of your attempting to censor content that might reflect badly on some aspect of China. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not censored, nor is it an appropriate venue for your political agenda editing. Certainly a film review can analyse a film from a political perspective – please stop trying to censor Wikipedia for utterly frivolous reasons like these, and stop blanking sections of reliably-sourced content. Also, whether or not you personally consider a critic's review "irrational" is completely irrelevant as to whether or not it belongs here. Citobun (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Again, you are using the wrong words. I hereby restate that my edits are not "censorship". Per censorship: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information that may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions." Unluckily, I belong to none of them. I presume you should've known this. Probably you feel like using "censorship" to label me a "freedom oppressor" to gain sympathy from others.
2. Seemingly in your view reliable sources are utterly sacred which cannot be even removed for being biased. As a matter of fact, however, this isn't always true. (Per WP:BIASED: Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources...)
3. "Also, whether or not you personally consider a critic's review "irrational" is completely irrelevant as to whether or not it belongs here." Well, this point is pretty interesting. My consideration is not related, what about yours and others? As human, we are all subjective. Or you mean their are some objective individuals who can determine whether these content should be here,
4. "By "critical reception", we mean this section should include film critics's reception on this film." You didn't respond to this. Yin Shanshan is merely a lecturer in a university who is obviously not a critical which means her comments should not appear in the critical reception section. Not to mention she posted her absurd opinions on social media. --Whaterss (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to this dictionary definition of censorship and stop trying to deflect the conversation into this sort of pedantry. The root problem is your long-term political agenda editing.

If you want to blank properly-referenced content, the onus is on you to provide an appropriate rationale grounded in Wikipedia policy. You haven't. Considering you think the BBC is an unreliable source, I am not really sure what you consider an appropriate source for Wikipedia.

It doesn't matter if you personally consider a critic's review "irrational". Your role as a Wikipedia editor is not to be the arbiter of this. Wikipedia articles reflect aspects of the subject that have been covered in reliable secondary sources – which this person's review has.

She is a critic, by the definition of the word critic. She is even referred to as a "critic" in the RFA headline! Again, stop trying to deflect the discussion into this kind of inane pedantry. The fact is, you are still attempting to censor Wikipedia in spite of our policies at WP:NOT; you have ignored prior warnings on these grounds; and you have not provided any grounds rooted in Wikipedia policy to blank this content. Citobun (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Citing RFA which is funded by US government and cannot serve as a RS only shows your political agenda either. Btw, you are still attempting to hide from my question and avoid confrontation. Whatever issues related to this article can be discussed in the talkpage, even they're so -called "pedantry". Lastly, I admit BBC is mostly a RS, yet it doesn't mean its branch-BBC Chinese-is reliable, too. Even if BBC Chinese is mostly reliable, it doesnt suggest every article on it is reliable. Whaterss (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Which question am I hiding from...? Regarding RFA, in this context there is no doubt as to the veracity of the material given that it's merely reporting on comments that were previously published. Citobun (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Censorship issue, technically I don't censor anything(see my previous explanations) and thus don't violate WP:NOT. Whaterss (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, if you really wish to drag us into arguing over DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS, there are plenty that indicate the definition of "censor" is not limited to governments. You have still no provided no policy-based grounds to blank this content. Given your history of political agenda editing, I feel completely comfortable calling this an attempt at politically-rooted censorship – which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Citobun (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Btw, I wonder if you can speak Chinese(or Cantonese). As far as I know, most Hong Kongers are bilingual Whaterss (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Great? Keep wondering, because my personal information has nothing to do with this discussion. Citobun (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of dictionary, undoutedly the most prominent one is Oxford Dictionary, lets see how it defines "censor".(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censor)"Examine (a book, film, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it." By officially, it means by authorities. Again, it's about something relevant to government which has nothing to do with mine. Whaterss (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

How about looking up censorship, the actual word we are discussing, in the same dictionary? Citobun (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, as exactly as I have expected, some Hong Kong guys are extremely hostile to mainlanders. Whaterss (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)