# Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road

I am a student working on a project to introduce scholarly articles to Wikipedia pages that are missing them. I don't understand how disabilities aren't "relevant" to the themes of Mad Max: Fury Road, and will continue to put the edit up until given a reason it shouldn't belong. Sophiellie (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

First, if you are new here, realize that Wikipedia operates on Consensus. Editors are often encouraged to be be bold, but when your bold edit doesn't stick, you should generally resort to discussion on the article talk page and seek consensus with the opposing editor(s) before repeating the same edit. WP:EPTALK goes into more detail.Looking at your recent attempt, there could be a few issues that need sorted out. Katie Ellis is an author in both sources you've cited, yet you stated "Many literary scholars..." in the claim. Does either source actually state "many", or is that a conclusion you made? Also, having at least two independent sources that are not affiliated with one another in any way would help show the significance and that the content has due weight. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
I reposted the edit because there was so reason given for its takedown. If I had been given a reason, I most certainly would have made the changes before reposting. If you took a look at either source, you would see they reference many disability scholars, not just the ones cited. If you think it’d be better to have every one of those sources cited, I will gladly take the time to do so. Sophiellie (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
It looks like you were only reverted once, in this revert by an anonymous editor. Since you've started the talk page discussion, they have ample opportunity to come here and explain why they believe it is "not important". If they don't, then you've done your due diligence in coming to the talk page. You should be good otherwise.I don't personally have any issues with the content you've added, other than to reiterate that the sources you've provided do, in fact, fully support the claims you've added. I haven't checked the sources to verify, nor do I plan to at this time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifiying! As you can tell, I’m extremely new to the editing process, and I’m very grateful for the feedback!! Sophiellie (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
The Themes section seems a little verbose and perhaps  excessively subdivided with four section subheadings for only four paragraphs, but the content of the edits and the inclusion of Disability as a relevant theme does seem to be valid and entirely reasonable. -- 109.76.128.25 (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)