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.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Noommos}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Unexplained adding of category

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

The bot stumbled over formatting.

Fixed a regex. Noom (t) 16:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]