Talk:Ben and Arthur: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:16, 23 February 2011

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 June 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

Film: American Start‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

LGBTQ+ studies Start‑class

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Depiction of Christianity section

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list:

Society, sports, and culture

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 :Yup. I cleaned it up a little bit just now but it still needs a lot of work. --[[User:DearPrudence|DearPrudence]] ([[User talk: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.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.241.26.184|70.241.26.184]] ([[User talk:70.241.26.184|talk]]) 15:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Depiction of Christianity section ==
+{{rfctag|soc}}
+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. [[Special:Contributions/65.71.124.104|65.71.124.104]] ([[User talk:65.71.124.104|talk]]) 02:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)