Talk:Show Me Love (film)/Archive 1

message: It's a Swedish-language film filmed in Sweden, it has a Swedish director and stars Swedish actresses. So why is it in :Category:Danish films? --Zoz (t) 00:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since removed.  --Mareklug talk 00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Danish films 

message: On this page, people are warned about plot details, but not profanity. In others words:
* Words that are banned on public television: not warned
* Words that are free to use anywhere: warned
A perfect example of the bizarre mentality held by Wikipedia editors. --Teggles 05:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia is meant to give you the facts as they are, not to adapt them to the standards of the most oversensitive people found on the planet. In your country, apparently, "bad language" is banned on TV. In some countries calling the leader a dictator is banned on TV. In other countries critical analysis of Islam is banned on TV. Wikipedia would be absurd reading if we took into account what is legal to broadcast in every country on the planet, or to what people in different parts of the world find offensive. If you want to object that the use of profanities in the article is irrelevant to the subject, then ok. But if you're just surprised to find four letter words in an article about a movie called "Fucking Åmål", then I don't really understand you... -Duribald 07:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said warned, not adapted. I find it ironic that a word banned on public television is not warned, but a spoiler is. There is a difference between that and covering the facts. I'm not complaining about the lack of profanity warning, I'm complaining about the existence of spoiler warning. Also, in my country, "bad language" on public television is not banned and I find the concept illogical. But it is in USA, which is the location of Wikipedia. --Teggles 08:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Warning is a form of adaption, and it has a tendence of leading to self censorship. We could warn people about contents that is offensive to Islam too. Anyway, Wikipedia may physically be located in America, but that doesn't mean it's an American project. THe point of it is that it is open to anyone in the whole world. This article, for example, is mainly written by Swedish editors, such as myself, and we don't have any censored words on the telly. The spolier warning template exists because a lot of people find it useful. You can always argue that it should be removed from any given article, but don't do the this-is-an-American-project thing, because it isn't. :-) - Duribald 17:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why are TV standards the reference by which you judge other standards ironic? Perhaps it's the TV industry's mentality that is bizarre? --Kvaks 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh, the irony 

message: If you google for "show me love" sweden agnes elin site:en.wikipedia.org, Google finds this article, so clearly the search engine has seen the page. However, if you make the quite natural search "fucking amal" site:en.wikipedia.org, it does not find it. Fucking Amal redirects here and has done so for several years. Does anyone have any idea why Google is failing in this way, and what we can do to make that search work? Tualha (Talk) 12:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh, never mind. It's because the URL doesn't matter; the content matters. I'll add a comment or something with the un-accented version, that should work. Tualha (Talk) 13:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google not finding this article via redirect