User talk:Noommos

Archives (Index)

2011/January 2011/February 2011/March 2011/April 2011/May 2011/June 2011/July 2011/August 2011/October 2012/January 2012/March 2012/April 2012/June 2012/August 2012/September 2012/October 2012/November 2012/December 2013/January 2013/October 2014/November 2016/November 2021/August

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Unexplained adding of category

Can you explain this edit [1] ? DexDor (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The bot stumbled over formatting.  Fixed a regex. Noom (t) 16:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Authorship controversy

This title is misleading and unfair.

There is no authorship controversy and the title should be changed. The whole section should be removed. Some Amma Asante fans do not agree with the WGA arbitration rules. Their objections apply to every film made since 1941 whose credits have been determined under those WGA rules.

This "controversy" should either be at the bottom of every film whose credit shave been determined by the WGA or it should be taken off this particular film and put in a section about WGA arbitration as a whole so it is set in context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.139.253 (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The section already seems too long and you added a large chunk of biased content with few references. The previous version was shorter and seemed to discuss the matter more neutrally. I'll gladly rewrite it to make it shorter if you can provide some references. Noom (t) 12:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to see my version of the section? You're adding too much content and bias again in your recent edits. Noom (t) 12:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I would like to see it. How? I think the whole article is biassed. 100 reviews have been made of this film everywhere. Nowhere has the credit been questioned. these die hard "controversyers" have dragged up one Daily Mail gossip article to quote to support their claim there is widespread "controversy". The aim of all this is to delegitimise and thereby overturn the credit awarded to Misan Sagay. Wikipedia should not be supporting that Agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.139.253 (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

When you're writing the section, it needs to be neutral and every claim needs to be backed up by a source. Since I only have two sources to go by for this section, it really doesn't need to be as long as it is. I've shortened it and only mentioned what is found in the source(s). Here's my version:

The screenplay credits for the film have proved a source of controversy. Initial press coverage ahead of filming cited Amma Asante as the sole writer of Belle, as well as director,{{cite web}} but press releases that followed Fox Searchlight's acquisition of the film confirmed the credit as determined by the Writers Guild of America, West to be "Written by Misan Sagay".{{cn}}

Baz Bamigboye reported that cast members Tom Wilkinson and Penelope Wilton had expressed 'incredulity' at the accreditation decision because Wilkinson and Wilton had only seen and worked from scripts written by Asante.{{cite web}} Miss Asante was hired to work on Misan Sagay's screenplay after she left the project due to ill health. An arbitration process undertaken by the Writers Guild of America, determined that Ms Sagay provided the bulk of content used in the script. They unanimously concluded that the shooting script was an edit and polish of Misan Sagay's script. Misan Sagay was unanimously awarded sole credit.[dailymail ref]

Belle's Producer Damian Jones confirmed that the film had been subject to a normal arbitration by the Writer's Guild of America (WGA). Whilst the WGA does not comment on its arbitrations, Jones stated: "There was a WGA arbitration. The WGA made its decision on writing credits. And the production respects and abides by their decision."[dailymail ref]

Noom (t) 12:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Belle 2013

I would like to see your version please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.139.253 (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Belle 2013

This section is long and disproportionate because it is not about Belle but about challenging the entire WGA rules that awarded the credit by a few disgruntled Amma Asnate fans.

To put the challenge in context it is important to explain those rules and state that they are the rules that have determined credits since 1941.

You cannot state there is a controversy then quoting only one source because there are no others that back up that claim.

Also you cannot quote Baz article without stating that he is a Showbiz correspondent for the Daily Mail and not a serious journalist and stating that there are no other sources. The comments in that article need to be put in context against the rest of the article which is wildly factually inaccurate and readers should have that information. You have no more references because there are none. There is no controversy. These controversyers should give it a rest and wiki should not allow people to put there is a controversy over something when there is clearly not.

I believe this segment should be removed from this and any points raised put under the WGA credit arbitration article in Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.139.253 (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The section doesn't need to explain the rules of the arbitration, it only needs to state that an arbitration occurred and ruled in Sagay's favour. It is a more relevant topic for the film's article rather than the WGAs. It does have a reference for it and does seem like something worth mentioning, just not not such great detail. It's enough to state that there was controversy, why there was such controversy, and what came of it (the arbitration). The article needs no more than that. Noom (t) 13:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It is much clearer. BUT 1) However I think it is unfair to write that there was "controversy" based on this one rather crazy article. The only controversy is from a few of Amma Asante's "supporters". I have removed that statement. If you are replacing it then you need to make sure it does not imply there is a industry wide controversy. You would not say there is controversy over whether OBAMA was born in AMerica without stating that this is an opinion held by a lunatic fringe and not the general population.

2) It implies it was a source of controversy that the reported credits changed during the lifetime of the project. It is completely normal and applies to almost every film made. The way you have put it makes it seem as though the credit change was controversial. This press report which cited Misan Sagay can be used in the article. http://www.movieweb.com/news/damian-jones-and-noel-clarke-team-for-fast-girls. I don' know how to put it in myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.139.253 (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

I am having trouble editing constructively. I am sorry if any of my recent edits have been troublesome. 66.87.79.169 (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It appeared as if you were adding gibberish to the page. If you are unable to make a change, you can explain it here and I can make it for you. Additionally, do not edit my personal identity as you did here. Noom (t) 12:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I was able to make the change I was after. There was a redundant space in the Cast list after Basher Savage's name. But now that it is fixed, I would like to report a bot which is flooding my talk page with "ClueBot Attacks". How can I get him to stop? 66.87.79.169 (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That's okay. ClueBot automatically detected one of your changes as being bad (one of the ones that looked like gibberish) and reverted it automatically. It left you a note on your talk page just letting you know why it did it. There's also an automated note from me on there, which you can ignore if you had no bad intentions. Thanks, Noom (t) 13:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

pls get a life

please get a life. a real one, if possible.