This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
A fact from The Founding of a Party appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 June 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
The VeryCD online polling had been harmonized only 2 days into the movie's national release, was it because of the miserable rating(was 2.2 when I saw it)? Is it not a joke when over 100 big time movie stars sweat it out for weeks, and the end product is being called "rubbbish"? RFI should be a reliable source.
I have already once removed the section about VeryCD, on the grounds that it is a)unreliable, and b) that criticism has been expunged. I don't think it's desirable or encyclopaedic to keep spamming the article with links to community reviews from unreliable sources (including imdb). If we had a RS (or authoritative blogs like 'Shanghaiist') commenting on such online opinions, they can probably be included. Right now, w have to be content with major sources labelling it as 'propaganda', as if we didn't know that already. We can of course include reviews from HK, Taiwan and Western media as and when they are published.
Yes, the reality is that CFC has once again used its clout to secure the cooperation of these big names. It's not as if they had to recruit and pay
Brangelina at their going rates. I'm not being entirely cynical in saying that stars' payroll is kept low by the hanging threat of being blackballed from all future acting assignments. --
Ohconfucius¡digame!01:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Incorrect. RFI is a secondary source. Nothing we do transforms a primary source into a secondary one; Thus when RFI uses it, we can cite RFI about that reporting. --
Ohconfucius¡digame!04:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)reply
VeryCD is not a reliable source; this is not disputable, this is fact. We can stop arguing over this now. If you do dispute this, then I do question the quality of your long-time stay at Wikipedia. You cannot use anything like that as a citation, as that would clearly be
WP:OR. You cannot use BBSes. You cannot use IMDB, which is a user-content website. VeryCD is a
piracy website anyway, and I've seen cases before when people have posted links to
The Pirate Bay URL pages and have gotten
oversighted and banned without warning; direct links to piracy websites should never be placed on Wikipedia. -- 李博杰 | —
Talkcontribsemail07:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Akin to
Voice of America, RFI is the mouthpiece of the French Government. But I assume that no matter what I say, it won't get processed in your mind, given that I recall having a heated discussion with you a month ago where you still believe that VOA is a "lol neutral sauce xD". I'm not even going to bother explaining anything to you this time, it's not worth my effort. Given my history with you, and my interpretation of how stubborn you can be, I'd rather be able to preserve my
Adenosine triphosphate stores. -- 李博杰 | —
Talkcontribsemail08:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Oh, and just so I could let it out, Jesus **French christ, the film has only been out for two **French days. At least wait two weeks before looking around for reviews. And no, **sugar on the internet is not hot **sugar, it's cold and reek **sugar, because **sugar like this is always subject to
trolling. Wait for the New York Times or some **sugar. And yes, I mad. (inb4 my comment gets removed by someone ten times more butthurt than I currently am) -- 李博杰 | —
Talkcontribsemail08:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC) - comment modified because Arilang1234 is getting upset. Benlisquare 08:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)reply
I for one would prefer if a film just be detailed as a film, and don't give a bat's spleen about the politics behind it. But it seems that inevitably such things will be discussed, given that it is a state-made film. -- 李博杰 | —
Talkcontribsemail08:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Is it a normal practice for user to spell out the F words twice, the S words 5 times, in a short sentence, do we really need this kind of language here on wikipedia? Arilang talk08:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)reply
I however have no idea on how to properly format the reference for the infobox. Should a footnotes section be made within the reference, akin to the infobox found at, say,
Second Sino-Japanese War? I'd prefer not to have every single name reffed with the same reference, as that would become quite messy. -- 李博杰 | —
Talkcontribsemail06:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)reply