Talk:The Founding of a Republic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sorting cast, as per ZH Wiki

Argh, this is sorting hell, and very tedious, somebody else help out and do the rest of it... -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. It wasn't as bad as when I first translated the entire cast directly from Chinese Wikipedia. Some roles are missing so you can help to fill in. Thanks. Lonelydarksky (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Movie Discrepancies

Should someone write about the movie's discrepancies? Times mentioned something about the movie "Reshooting History". --98.197.177.195 (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Da Vynci, your edits to the LEDE have made the article non-NPOV. Sure, there are sources which word it like that, however you must consider external biases when considering the use of sources. "The source says so" is not a good excuse for inclusion, as sources can easily vary; some sources may have one viewpoint, others a totally different one. This film article should be entirely NPOV; do we really have to include a mention of the CCP everywhere? It is a film, for chrissake. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference used in the lead are 1)Associated Press (quoted into sulekha.com and San Francisco Chronicle); 2) ABC News (Australia); 3) BBC news. I believe they are reliable sources; but if you have problem with it, we can open an enquiry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for verification. Do you want to open an enquiry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to verify those 3 sources reliability? Da Vynci (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But that's only one side. Within China, it's considered an epic film. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple sources from different countries was quoted, so I don't understand what do u mean by "one side". If you are using one source from China only, that's one side. Furthermore, due to issue of Censorship in the People's Republic of China, if you quote Chinese sources, they could be opened to challenge as an unreliable source in sensitive issue like this under Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you are able to be NPOV you should allow opinion from places other than China to be included. Da Vynci (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove those references from the opening section unless you obtain advise from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard stating Associated Press, ABC News (Australia) and BBC news are unreliable sources. Da Vynci (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove references? Who said I did? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And your edit is grammatically incorrect (what the hell is a "Chinese Communists propaganda film"?) in the first place. I'm not going to do anything, just in case I become accused of edit warring. Find a better way to word the lede. As to whether certain people think if the film is propaganda or not, this does not belong in the LEDE, but in a section below. It is not crucial information, borders on WP:NPOV, and disputable. How is this LEDE material? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't, I appreciate your understanding. Chinese Communists Propaganda Films is as grammatically correct as Hong Kong martial arts film. According to Wikipedia:Lead section, the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It is a propaganda film, which makes it a LEDE material. Other propaganda films also include the word "propaganda" in the LEDE, e.g. The Eternal Jew. Da Vynci (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"Chinese communist" would be correct, "PRC" would be better. It would be incorrect to use a plural noun as an adjective. "Hong Kong" is not plural, but "C.Cs" is. "Martial arts" would be synonymous with "propaganda" in the sentence structure, but the previous word doesn't work out properly. If you really intend on mentioning propaganda in the LEDE, then make it "PRC propaganda" - "Chinese communist" is a loaded word, and essentially makes an WP:NPOV hell. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's merely about the word "propaganda" -- you X-ed the "Response-section" and fudged it into the "lead" (which actually isn't a "lead" anymore since there is no "follow" left, except for a bunch of lists and tables). No matter what point of view you're trying to push, mixing up description, response, and follow-ups, isn't the best way to give the impression of a neutral point of view. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The LEDE originally had the word propaganda film, until someone deleted the word and created a "response section" just so that the word "propaganda" can be deleted from the LEDE. If it is a propaganda film, it should be described in the LEDE. You should see other article for propaganda film as examples, such as The Eternal Jew. Da Vynci (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(later addition:) The Eternal Jew is undisputably a confirmed propaganda film. Don't mix apples with oranges and make an irrelevant conclusion. The status of TFOAR is disputable, and so you cannot argue that it applies in the same manner. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but these sources are all from the Western hemisphere. Sources outside note the film differently:

• China: All-star epic presents a new face for China Xinhua: Refers to the film as an epic film.
• Russia: Обзор международного бокс-офиса - Notes the film as one of China's largest historical films, which depicts its civil war.
• Pakistan:

Thus, by proof by induction, these examples nullify the argument that all sides argue that the film is mere propaganda. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what are you trying to proof. Just because not "all" reference would indicate that Winston Churchill is a Nobel prize winner (as many literature would just state he is a British PM and omit other honours) , it doesn't nullify that fact that he is a Nobel prize winner. Wikipedia includes facts whenever it is supported by multiple reliable sources. The criterion isn't the fact must be mentioned in ALL literature on earth, that's impossible. Da Vynci (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, there are a couple of issues with your refs:

• The ABC News ref is scarcely verifiable. Can you provide a source for that transcript?
• The Sulekha ref does not seem to be a reliable source - it is full of errors for a start (it mentions Stephen Chow as an actor. they may have even taken this information from an earlier revision of this Wikipedia article, who knows) and it seems to be a commercially-driven Indian film site.

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Citing details of a publication (author, date of publication, publisher, title) is enough to to form a reference, because it already contains the all the details needed for reader who is willing to spend reasonable effort to locate the source.

However, some readers/editors just wouldn't even try to locate the source by themselves even all the details are provided in the reference, especially those who just want to remove reference from the article because have hard time realizing the facts supported by that books (or the publications),

The Recording of the ABC News - "Chinese blockbuster criticised as propaganda could be located easily by searching the title using Google, but some people just somehow wouldn't do that, instead they go to the talk page to say it is "scarcely verifiable", because they didn't actually try to verify it.

The statement is mainly supported by the reference of BBC, ABC and Associated Press, as I said before, if you have problem, u can submit an enquiry to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to verify those sources reliablity. But you didn't. Now, you are challenging the Sulekha reference, well, the Sulekha is basically consistent with BBC, ABC and Associated Press in regard with the propaganda description. If you are not challenging the propaganda description supported by BBC, ABC and Associated Press, there is no point for challenging the very same description provided by the Sulekha reference.Da Vynci (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it was your WP:BURDEN to provide the link earlier. It is your responsibility, not mine. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong on this. If one cites a book and includes all the details (author, publisher, page, ISBN etc), you can't possibly ask other wiki-editors to deliver the book to your door just because you don't believe the information is really written on the publication. You should go to library and find the book yourself. The policy on WP:BURDEN says " All quotations and any material...must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article." In this case, it is a News broadcast, I included the time and date of the broadcast, publisher, TV presenter, and a transcript, it fulfill the requirement of "reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely" . It is not my responsibility to record the News Program and delivery to your computer, and you are surely not in the position to accuse the source as "scarcely verifiable" given the fact that you didn't even try to look at the News program even all the details of the broadcast has already been given. Da Vynci (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What a silly interpretation. You're essentially using condoms to make an argument about the price of petrol, by attempting to make something appear absurd when it is not. No one is asking you to deliver anything to anyone - this is completely unrelated to your responsibility of properly citing reliable sources which are verifiable by all users. If you fail to meet that criteria, then that is that, don't bring in all this unnecessary unrelated rubbish. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

When one ant cannot push the stone

benlisquare (李博杰) has been leaving messages to other editors (here here here and here) and questioned whether the words "propaganda film" included in the LEDE is NPOV. I would like to consolidate the discussion here.

Here is the message he posted: Does this look NPOV to you? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

@benlisquare, that looks NPOV because it cited multiple reference from reliable sources. It is also interesting you acted so quickly to ask your friends to help you to removed referenced material from the LEDE. Da Vynci (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

@Seb az86556, I am the one who added the references from 1)Associated Press; 2) ABC News (Australia) and 3) BBC news, all stating the film is a propaganda film, other propaganda film such as The Eternal Jew also include the words "propaganda film" of that in the LEDE. We could certainly have a "criticism section", but creating such section is a not valid reason to remove the word "propaganda film" from the LEDE. Da Vynci (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule against seeking other's opinions for a consensus, especially since Wikipedia is a community and it is not uncommon for editors to seek the advice of users that have been here for longer than they have, users with greater knowledge of policy, users that are more active, etc.. Don't overreact and go fishing for feelings due to this. WP:AGF - if I really meant malicious intent, I would have used the email feature, rather than the talk page, which leaves no traces. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I would like to consolidate the discussion here. (Perhaps you missed the opening paragraph of this section?) So you don't have to go into your defense mode so soon. Another reason I consolidate the discussion is my responses to one of your message has been erased by Seb az86556 (or whoever) who claimed "My talkpage is not for discussion of page content.", so I had no choice but copy the question and response from User's talk page to here. Da Vynci (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You also have the responsibility to a) not to falsely accuse others for misrepresent the statements or questions of others (I moved messages to here after you said your talkpage is not for discussing page content); b) not to falsely accuse others for harass people on their talkpages ( All I stated in the talkpage was: the edit is NPOV, and it has references to support it, if you find it harassing, please point out how it was harassing.) c) understand that text in Wikipedia (including those in talkpage) is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, anyone is free to share and remix it, as long as we attribute the author, which I did. Da Vynci (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Enough with this. The topic, please. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

break

Anyway, you are dodging my remark. Why are you so intent on using loaded words? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My intention is just to include facts, not hide them (such as removing it from the LEDE and place it at the bottom of the paragraph) . If it is a propaganda film, we shouldn't handle it differently from other propaganda films just because we are Chinese. Da Vynci (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically if you included the statement "the core of an 'ethically inspiring' film with commercial packaging." in the lead of the article, then you might as well call it a propaganda film for profit. Jim101 (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need to take any position on this. Why not just say "Many consider it a propaganda film." ? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

See, the thing about the Chinese media is that phrase "ethically inspiring" means propaganda, I thought the definition is clear here. Jim101 (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if AP used the word "propaganda" (as a colorful word for a news piece), I think we should be careful about adopting their terminology, especially as it has lots of negative connotations and will make it look like we're passing judgment. "Propaganda" often implies brainwashy stuff. But the line between this and self-congratulatory historical drama can be tricky (in the US there's World Trade Center (film), does that count as propaganda?), especially in China where the state has a heavy hand in mainstream film. Clearly, they had much more involvement in this than in most films (i.e., as far as I can tell they pretty much commissioned it and dictated its content), but there are ways to express that without resorting to sensitive words. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried my best to come up with a neutral revision. While I have had numerous frustrating encounters with User:Da Vynci, and nothing tires me more than the firebombing of sources to prove a point, I do think that the fact so many notable media sources have called the film "propaganda" to be notable. As such, I have left that clause in the lede, but in accordance with WP:NPOV, I do not outright define the film as "propaganda". It should be up to the reader to judge whether or not the film is propaganda, just like it should be up to a reader to judge whether or not Tiananmen was a "massacre" or a "protest". Colipon+(Talk) 23:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to end this debate, if Colipon retract his accusation and apologize for his never ending personal attacks to me, I am ok to settle with the LEDE of "The Founding of a Republic is a PRC historical film, which is considered by many as a propaganda film.", or something similar. Da Vynci (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that you are admitting that your earlier edit was a WP:POINT edit? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The film is described by multiple sources that is a propaganda film, adding/restoring information with supports from multiple references is called Wikipedia:Reliable sources. However, removing reference without any reason is Wikipedia:Vandalism. Da Vynci (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Such act is described in the wikipedia policy Page_blanking#Types_of_vandalism

“ ...referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." ”

Suggestion are welcomed in this talkpage to reach consensus in this matter, but any further attempt to remove reliable references without valid reasons could be considered as vandalism and reverted immediately by any editor. Da Vynci (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURO, WP:GAME. Since what you mentions prohibits users from improving Wikipedia, by allowing blatant POV to be placed in the LEDE in a questionable manner (and that's LEDE, not body, which may be permissible depending on circumstances), then WP:IAR. IAR because it fails Wikipedia:Consensus. IAR because WP:POINT on behalf of your edits and subsequent reversions. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So is there any other reason why you removed all the references from the LEDE? Da Vynci (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That is beyond the point. You are ignoring the fact that your reversions were a POV-nightmare, and a reversion of good faith edits by User:Colipon which made the LEDE much more balanced. And here, you are arguing about removal of references?!? Are you trying to hide the apple with an orange? And you are lynching Negroes? Are you trying to garner appeal to emotion with other contributors by adding spin to your words by wisdom of repugnance? Are you making an association fallacy by associating reversion of questionable POV with vandalism? Stop avoiding the POV issues and bringing in all this reference-removal talk, which makes a completely irrelevant argument. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Mate, have you even seen the film? Can you confidently make assurance to yourself that it is so? That it is not a historical film, but rather a mouthpiece for world communism? Where in the film do we have the evil commies spreading their ideas? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you still in denial that that BBC, ABC (Australia) and Associated Press all described the film as "propaganda film"? I simply trying to include the fact that they have made such description, and let the reader decide. It is a significant view regarding the film's nature, so it is reasonable to be in the LEDE. Do you have reference that support it is a "historical film"? Da Vynci (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I only say good things once. It's on this page, go look for it. I am not a maid, nor any editor's mother. 老子好话只说一次。 -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

2nd break

May I warn editors to adhere to WP:3RR. The next reversion on the part of either party may be an infringement. It has already been stated within one revision summary that more than one editor voices opposition to a specific edit, and so resolution belongs on this talk page, and reverts are clearly unnecessary and not of any solution. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to stop the edit-warring here. This page is on my watchlist and I've been seeing multiple ongoing battles between editors for the past week, even until today. I don't see any point in fighting over the word "propaganda". I agree with 李博杰 that this article should be as neutral as possible. The term "propaganda" hints that the film is used by the Chinese government to achieve certain political agenda. Whether it's true or not, I don't think that the film is useful in any way as a piece of evidence to prove that point. Neither am I, a non-Chinese citizen, in any position to criticize the Chinese government. Please read Dispute resolution and Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Here's a suggestion, get an administrator to look into the issue. Maybe he/she can help you resolve the conflict. No offense to anyone here. _LDS (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I filed a request at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-16/The Founding of a Republic. Da Vynci (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you're engaging a mediator to help you resolve the problem. I think you people can stop making any more edits pertaining to that removal of references issue for the time being until you settle your dispute. That's one way to stop the ongoing edit-war. _LDS (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User: Da Vynci is clearly in violation of 3RR. Colipon+(Talk) 10:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Colipon the vandal repeatedly blinked the page's references base on his own POV. I am not surprised that you resent the people who fixed your vandalism. 3RR does not apply for reverting vandalism, as mass blanking of references without valid reason is clear vandalism. Da Vynci (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not vandalism to uphold WP:NPOV. And perhaps when a group of unrelated, uninvolved users all revert your changes, it is you who is committing the inappropriate act here. I'm happy to await mediation on this actually, as I think it will be much more difficult for you to make a case than it is for the rest of us. Calling four or five other unrelated editors vandals is a poor strategy at best, I'm afraid. Colipon+(Talk) 10:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Basically your idea of what NPOV is "things that you agree", and POV is "things that you don't agree". Your recent action showed no respect to wikipeida's principle regarding reliable sources, and are a continous disruption. Benlisquare (李博杰) has been very actively inviting his friends to edit this page, he invited you too, remember? (see beginning of this section for proof) That's why they are so many "unrelated, uninvolved" users suddenly appear on this page. Da Vynci (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of those unrelated, uninvolved users. I'm an external party who has been observing the edit war since last week. I don't know any of the involved parties (Da Vynci, 李博杰, Colipon etc) before this incident, and I think I'm in a neutral position. I don't agree that propaganda is a loaded word but since, according to 李博杰 here, that an admin agrees so, I shan't argue on that. I don't understand why Da Vynci is so insistent on labeling the film as a propaganda film? He may have found some references which say so but I think that the information is still biased against the Chinese government, which shouldn't be the case. I think that the term "propaganda film" should be used sparingly, perhaps only in extreme cases when such films are used for certain political agenda. Like what Da Vynci mentioned, The Eternal Jew, labeling it as a propaganda film is acceptable because Hitler and his Nazi Party made that film to incite racial prejudice against the Jews. That's an extreme case of "misuse" of propaganda. Back to this film, I don't think that it's not produced to achieve any (undesirable) objectives, if any. In my opinion, I agree that it's simply a historical film to mark the 60th anniversary of the People's Republic of China, as stated in the introduction. _LDS (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I just made a response in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-16/The Founding of a Republic that happens to answer your comment. On the side note, first of all, I didn't label the film as "propaganda film", BBC, ABC (Australia) and Associated Press did. I don't mean to challenging you, but on what ground you are saying those referenced information are biased? Also, you are saying we can only include the words "propaganda film" in extreme case of propaganda film, but not in normal propaganda film? Why suddenly increasing threshold?

If the wording is too "labeling", you can well use other way to re-write the sentence. In any case, benlisquare and Colipon's way blanking all the reference along with the word "propaganda" in the LEDE is not acceptable, and is just a quick way to censor things base on their POV, and in the process making horrible false accusation to a fellow editor who try to have some respect to reliable sources. Da Vynci (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Two words: Wikipedia:Policy shopping. To Hitler, exterminating "swine" was humanitarian; to you, removing POV is vandalism. I can not help but to think that you are basing everything you say on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You are clearly being disruptive in reverting POV removals, and now you keep crying wolf and play the vandalism card. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing this talk page, it seems that you (Benlisquare/李博杰) are the one who has been doing Wikipedia:Policy shopping, look at the long list of false accusations you made by misinterpreting the wikipedia policies and concepts so far: (WP:BURO, WP:GAME, WP:IAR, WP:POINT, And you are lynching Negroes, spin, wisdom of repugnance, association fallacy, Proof by assertion, Ignoratio elenchi...see above for more accusation), not to mention calling cited reference from BBC, ABC (Australia) and Associated Press as POV. This reminds me of those false accusations made to innocent literates during the Cultural revolution where accuser is indeed the one committing the crime. No wonder you got on your nerves so much and stated your objection immediately when I (mistakenly) said you are one of the "editors from China". Da Vynci (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on, bring out the Cultural Revolution now, huh? I guess there's no point in Detente if Brezhnev isn't going to engage in arms limitations. Don't expect me to be in a good mood, comrade. I shan't follow WP:CIVIL if it isn't reciprocated, and I will hound you to the grave if you continue your political remarks, like the one you just did which pisses me off, tit for tat. Bring it on, punk! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, from now on, can we stop discussing this issue here? It's taking up a lot of unnecessary space. We settle the problem on the mediation page instead. _LDS (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I think that's enough. And I don't expect to see any response pertaining to the issue from any of the involved parties on this page anymore. This is where it ends for this page. 要打架去别的地方打！ 这里不欢迎惹事生非的人！ _LDS (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If a 1949 in China article was made along with the other years covered in the movie. Then you can match up to see whether this film is historical or not. Benjwong (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Content

It would help if someone actually watched the movie and give a synopsis on what happens. Colipon+(Talk) 23:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I can (I've seen the film n+1 times), but wouldn't that be WP:OR? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The reason being that most movie plotlines I've seen on Wikipedia are basically interested users who've seen the film summarizing it in a few paragraphs. Very few people challenge it as long as it basically conforms to what the film is about. Colipon+(Talk) 11:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do that soon. Please allow a few days for me to find time to do so (I am currently rather busy, give at least five days), and it shall be done. Afterwards, other editors can copyedit and whatnot. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the movie & I have to say, it's absolutely crap. (yes, I said CRAP) So full of propaganda that I was sooo sick of it at probably 15 mins into the movie. TheAsianGURU (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've written a plot summary. It may need a bit of fine-tuning so maybe you all can help. _LDS (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good, got to be careful not to put too much. In fact, I encourage people to watch it, then they will understand what I mean by propa***** TheAsianGURU (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cast and character details

Referring to the Japanese Wiki article at w:ja:建国大業, the cast list is very detailed, with brief descriptions of each of the characters played. Perhaps something similar could be achieved here, with another column added after Actor and Persona giving a brief description of the persona being played. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added the descriptions. I may have made some mistakes, so please feel free to help me correct them if you spot any. Thanks. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 14:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda movie

If this is a propaganda movie then Pearl Harbor is also a propaganda movie as well as many other American movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.242.134 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit the Pearl Harbor article if you have reference to support your claim. Da Vynci (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The genre of this movie is "historical film", if some believe that this is communist propaganda we can place their opinions in a "critical response" section. Aegipan (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Equally, if you believe it is a historical film, you can put it into a "Plot" section. But more importantly the question is, who decide what word (e.g. propaganda) can or can't be include in certain place? Is there any reason why it can't appear in the opening sentence other than personal preference? The answer is, we don't decide such thing, we just include facts that are directly supported by reliable reference. The film is described as "propaganda film" in multiple reference. Da Vynci (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it's totally fine with me if this movie is categorized as a historical movie. But what strikes me then is that Wikipedia calls Jud Süß a Propaganda flick... But according to the logic of some of the other posters here, Jud Süß should then clearly be categorized as a historical film and the word propaganda removed from that article as well, shouldn't it? Otherwise Wikipedia would have double standards, wouldn't it?

--Hoerth (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the logic that you have personally seen both Jud Süß and Founding of a Republic, and after viewing, cannot see a difference between the two? That's just like saying "I, User:Benlisquare, am an Australian, and has never been to The Americas and seen a Buffalo before. But hey, they have the same taxonomical mumbo-jumbo, so they definitely taste the same as cow." -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship

Regarding this, the flagicons are supposed to denote citizenship, not ethnicity. This English Wikipedia article follows same trend of the Chinese Wikipedia article, so if there are any disagreements, notify ZH Wiki first. Also quoting User:Novis-M's edit summary: "Jet Li is CHINESE! It doesn't matter he also has Singaporean citizenship, he still is citizen of the People's Republic of China" - that cannot be possible, as the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China prohibits multiple citizenship. Once you gain citizenship elsewhere, you immediately forfeit Chinese nationality. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Rating

What is this movie rated? Is it suitable for kids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.122.26 (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Reception

This article seems to lack any mention of critical or commercial reception beyond the introductory paragraph. I'd be interested to see those for PRC, ROC, and the rest of the world. This would seem the best place to quote those sources which variously regard this film as propaganda or not propaganda. I haven't seen it and won't take a position on that, but the reactions of noteworthy sources are certainly worth inclusion. Especially since this talk page indicates that is a key point of interest. It seems unusual to lack this when there is so complete a list of actors here. --203.213.232.176 (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Attn: 140.112.185.129 and others

你好，台灣同學。如果您想要改一些文章，請到文章的talk page上留言。請不要開編輯戰，也不要用不文明的話（"fuck", "shit", 等等）。維基百科是一個中立性的百科全書；把國家叫成“共產”，“獨裁”或者“阿共子”是不允許的。您現在的行為不符合我們的core policies；如果繼續下來你學校的IP地址有可能會被block。

Hello, student(s) from the Taiwan Academic Network (140.112.185.129). If you would like to make controversial changes to certain articles, please discuss your edits on the article talk pages provided. Please do not engage in edit warring, and please adhere to civil language (avoiding unnecessary words such as "fuck" and "shit"). Wikipedia strives to be a neutral encyclopedia, and hence brandings such as "communist censorship" in the wrong places are not looked well upon. Some of your actions are not in accordance to Wikipedia's core policies; if you continue to engage in such behaviour, you may risk your school's IP address being blocked. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In reply to >Please do not remove sections without explanation on the talk page with reasoning:

1. Your initial edit summary >Not to be confused with an actual Republic or the historical "Chinese Republic" is not a valid reason, as the People's Republic of China is a republic (共和國) as well. Hence, the edit made was pointless.
2. Another edit summary made, which reads >not one person refers to the PRC as the Chinese Republic, nor is it actually a republic. I think this clarification is justified does not justify your edits either. You have not proven that nobody refers to the PRC as a Chinese republic. Your comment "nor is it actually a republic" is not a neutral or valid statement, as the PRC is even by strict definitions still a republic, in that it has a president and a legislature. Arguing that it is not is not NPOV. Arguing that it is a "dictatorship" or a "tyranny" does not follow NPOV either. "Republic" and "democracy" are not synonymous terms, and a republic does not have to be democratic. Mind you, the Republic of China from 1912 to 1988 was not democratic either, but rather ruled directly by either the Beiyang Government (to 1928) or the Chiang family (to 1988).
3. It appears that you are engaging in edit warring through the use of numerous IPs, and ignoring previous requests for you to state your reasons on the article talk page. One can only assume ill-faith on your behalf, unless you can explain yourself. The assumption is further worsened with a few comments made within edit summaries, such as >zhonghuaminguo wansui (中華民國萬歲； "Long live the ROC!") and >Undoing communist censorship (a personal attack against other contributors). This gives others the impression that your edits are partisan and disruptive, regardless of whether they actually were intended that way or not.

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Recension (Expand article)

Many people think it's a propagnanda movie. It'll be necessary to add some Chinese and English recensions to expand the article. — Weltforce _Talk 14:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)