Talk:Pride (2014 film)

Bronwen Lewis

This ref might belong here (if someone adds a section on the soundtrack). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmlieberman (talk • contribs) 2014-11-14T19:28:55

References

Box office

Please note: when checking source (BoxOfficeMojo), click "Foreign" section, not "Summary", and, as the gross is wrong, you must do the maths yourself. Thanks. Thomas Linard (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"Ratings Controversy"

This section is extremely misleading and is based solely upon two highly erroneous newspaper reports. The US has only one rating ("R") for the 15+ age range: it is perfectly normal for a UK 15 certificate film to receive "R" rating. (Indeed, unlike UK 15 certificates, a US 10-year-old could see the movie so long as they are accompanied by an adult — something which is illegal in the UK!) Technically speaking, there is no controversy other than that perceived by authors and those they have approached for quotes.

I recommend that this section be removed (or rewritten to emphasise that there was an alleged controversy). Mrstonky (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Can an unaccompanied 15-17 year old see the film in the US? If the answer is "no," then there is still controversy. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but that contention is invalid. ALL 15-certificate British films suffer the same 'R'-rated restrictions in the US (e.g. Cuban Fury, The Inbetweeners Movie, Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa, Kingsman: The Secret Service to name a few). Any "controversy" relates to the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system system in general rather than one specific film. Mrstonky (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Historical accuracy (revert)

User:Lugnuts reverted my writing in historical accuracy. Of course their is no research about the accuracy of this movie. But peoples do speak about his accuracy in article, and journal paper did write about this period. so what?

Generally, I think I'm going to stop writing on Wikipedia... if citing scientific paper is not enough, if peoples are doing revert without even starting a discussion, this project is lost. I will write my scientific paper and let peoples like User:Lugnuts doing the copy past... have fun. --Gagarine (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A few trivial inaccuracies are hardly worth mentioning. Bye. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. They aren't trivial nor WP:UNDUE. If the passage is poorly formulated, it must be rewritten, not deleted. Thomas Linard (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I wrote directly on User:Lugnuts discussion page because I think this guy has a serious problem and it's going to be a no-ending discussion that has nothing to do with the actual content of this page. Now about this historical inaccuracy, I'm more than happy if someone can write it in a better English as it's obviously not my first language. --Gagarine (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Great User:Lugnuts is reverting is user's talk page. I'm therefor asking for a RfC as I feel is not going to go anywhere with User:Lugnuts. --Gagarine (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought you were busy with a "scientific paper". I guess not. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't be sarcastic please. Their the comment your revert on your talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALugnuts&type=revision&diff=794735453&oldid=794735407 --Gagarine (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand - your ego got hurt with the revert. And now you're crying about it. Good for you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This has nothings to do with me or my ego. I only care because I think behavior like this are toxic for the Wikipedia project and the future of the community. If you think my feeling was hurt then "you are crying" and "good for you" is socially inappropriate as it imply making fun of myself. --Gagarine (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC about Historical accuracy section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not a lot of participation in this RfC, but the WP:FILMHIST guideline as cited by Erik is clear, yes, we can have a historical accuracy section, as the film's historical accuracy is specifically covered in reliable sources. Lugnuts worries that it would be undue weight, but the article is long, so there is room for a section on historical accuracy without it taking over the article.

On a side note, Lugnuts's repeated comments about Gagarine, here and above, include pretty clear personal attacks which did not help his case, and if they had been made more recently could well result in administrative action. I'm going to apologize to Gagarine for the sake of Wikipedia: I'm sorry you met with a reaction like this, this is not how we should do things around here. --GRuban (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Should a "Historical accuracy section" for Pride be deleted or not. See the ongoing discussion about it. Gagarine (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, per above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMHIST, there can be a "Historical accuracy" section if there are numerous reliable sources that explicitly compare the film to history. If there are not many sources, details can be interwoven elsewhere in the article. We cannot take sources only about the history and extrapolate comparisons to the film. For example, this is a source that talks about the film and the history. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Erik for those precision. So the following sources are clearly about inaccuracy:

* http://leftunity.org/pride-the-true-story/

* http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/labour-mp-criticises-film-pride-8831045

* https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-696f-Pride-The-Story-Behind-the-Film

* http://pomopress.com/films/pride.php

* ...

In my edit, I did mentioned the source of the secondary sources. I'm proposing to add those source that are about inaccuracy but keep the more serious historical sources. For references, this was the original content that made User:Lugnuts freak out:

The movie is a fiction and does not intend to be historically accurate, but some major inaccuracy can be highlighted:

* In the movie National Unions don't accept the money of LGSM apparently because they are lesbians and gays. In fact, the Thatcher administration sequestered the funds of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), meaning that it was pointless for supporters of the strike to send donations to the national union. Instead, support groups throughout the UK were encouraged to "twin" directly with the various mining communities in England, Scotland and Wales.

* In the movie antagonism between LGSM and the miners' community in Dulais has been exaggerated for dramatic effect. In fact, LGSM were welcome from the beginning.

* The movie downplays the extent to which the original members were actively involved in the organised left, and reduces the numbers of those involved.

* Many of those involved from the beginning were active in unions and/or left parties and were already involved in collecting at work and they had the quite modest aim of extending this to collecting for the miners inside the lesbian and gay community.

--Gagarine (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hardly "freak out". Now go write that "scientific paper" like a good boy. I'm can't wait to read it, champ. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References