Talk:Red Granite Pictures

Controversy Section

I have removed a paragraph that is almost identical to one removed by administrative action from the Riza Aziz page, for being unsourced and groundless in the personal charges it makes. I invite the editor involved to use primary and authoritative sources in editing articles. Versaedit (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Because of continued vandalism similar to this page, the Riza Aziz page has been placed on admin pre moderation for BLP violations. Versaedit (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No,they are not violation of any BLP. This is not BLP wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomcaws (talk • contribs) 02:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Versaedit First of all,this is not BLP page.

Wikipedia NPOV stated do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased.Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process.

Do not remove the sentence 'The producers of the hit movie "Dumb and Dumber" say Red Granite Pictures is using money from the Malaysian prime minister's family to squeeze them out of producing the upcoming sequel.' It does not violate anything from wikipedia.

What you are doing now are violating WP:NPOV.

By removing the sentence,all that left is from Red Granite Pictures perspective only without taking the Dumb and Dumber producers perspective. This is biased and mislead info to the readers.

Please spend some time reading this wikipedia link on achieving NPOV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality

References

Reverting vandalism from January 2015

I have reverted vandalism by user Hallerworld on January 7, 2016 to previous valid version 06:55, 24 November 2015‎ Jessicapierce. User had redirected to a separate page and deleted entire page contents unilaterally and without consensus and in apparent violation of Wikipedia Editing policy and Deletion policy. Further edits such as redirect or deletion should only be made with consensus. Chumachunk (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral POV vs promotional

Would like to make changes to make neutral pov and not read like a promotional advertisement. Fresh1face19 (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Article reads like a promotional advertisement rather than neutral pov, could be shortened and reorganized for more of an encyclopedic entry. How about moving filmography following brief introduction paragraph, then showing all existing text as "History" or similar. Intro is getting super long. Please advise. Fresh1face19 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Also suggest changing controversy section to more descriptive "Dumb and Dumber To Lawsuit" as it appears to be settled and is not really considered a "controversy" any more. Chumachunk (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

or just delete as it is old and no longer a controversy. Let a few days go by before deleting as discussion should take place before deleting as admins have pointed out in past Fresh1face19 (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I disagree. The mere passage of time or ending of legalities does not diminish the controversial nature of actions or events. Thousands of Wikipedia pages have "Controversy" sections or topics, and hundreds have the word in their page titles.

Controversies are a part of the historical record, and Red Granite has a history of controversial financing which recent probes (after the Dumb and Dumber To lawsuit) are just now bringing to light.

And, speaking of history, I tagged the entire History section, since it was originally a cut & paste job (probably from a well-meaning COI editor) from Red Granite's own website.

(FYI, I stopped short of using the {copyvio} tag, since it would blank out the section. A re-wording edit, taking advantage of others' existing hard work at footnotes, should suffice.) — DennisDallas (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)