Talk:Battle in Seattle

message: Hey guys .. There´s a similar article in : The Battle in Seattle (film) 200.158.47.125 15:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I merge both The Battle in Seattle (film) and Battle in Seattle together. I pick Battle in Seattle over The Battle in Seattle (film) because the previous one has more info than the later one. Chris! my talk 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I merge the two similar page 

message: :I realize that there some editors who may have a political axe too grind with this issue, but mispresenting a plot summary so it fits your political POV is wrong. There is nothing at the myspace summary of this movie that mentions the protesters turning violent. The summary also describes the protestors as being peaceful and unarmed. We can debate what actually happened in seattle on another page, but this is part of the official summary of this movie and it is wrong to mispresent it.annoynmous 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot Summary POV

message: I can't wait to include reception from the reviews of this steaming pile of fictional hollywood box office bomb. Did you know that they gave Gary Locke the first Asian-American governor a chop-sockey accent? --8bitJake (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews. 

message: has done a great job adding reviews and references to the article, possibly with the intention of balancing the mostly negative criticism from the anarchist media. The problem is that we shouldn't really care what the anarchists say about the film's artist merits any more than we should take Entertainment Weekly seriously as an authority on the film's factual accuracy with regard to the political content. For film articles, we usually include specific reviews in proportion to the critical consensus, so for this film which has roughly 50% approval on RT, roughly equal amounts of positive and negative aesthetic criticism should be included rather than the entirely positive selection here. Likewise, if there was support for the film's factual accuracy from, for example pacifist or anti-globalisation entities critical of the anarchists,  that would be appropriate to append to the factual protrayal section. In this version, it almost as if someone is responding to the criticism "Dave is a liar" with "Dave has a pretty face". the skomorokh 17:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance

message: I don't see how this film is fictional- it's based on the events of a true event that took place. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that Woody Harrelson is in it -- since he's not exactly a "pro-STATE" guy I am guessing that the film does not make the so-called "rioting" protestors out be the simple black+white bad guys... Hopefully I am correct in my hopefulness :) 199.214.26.194 (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm curious if there is any further clarification from those who maintain that this is not a "fictional" account. After reviewing the article, I think it would be worth mentioning that it is a fictional account (as I assume it is, based on briefly reviewing some of the existing press). I don't believe this is clear. Could someone please elaborate on the perceived "controversy". I don't think I totally understand the nature of the argument. ./zro (⠠⠵) 20:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional? 

message: The following comment was added to the article by IP 68.35.245.207; it has been moved here for discussion purposes: --Ckatzchatspy 01:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As such, I have removed the quote until consensus emerges as to how to treat it. the skomorokh 01:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entertainment Weekly quote 

message: Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_sources reads:
:Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used in limited circumstances, with caution:
:* When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
:*As sources of information about their author, especially in articles about their author, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. This usage is subject to specific restrictions outlined at WP:SELFPUB.
WP:SELFPUB reads in part:
:Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
:1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
:2. it does not involve claims about third parties;...
In both pages above opinions only allowable from mainstream highly WP:RS sources.
*Anarkismo.net: it seems like once you are accepted as an editor you can publish whatever you want, which would be self-published. That's ok if they are well known experts in their field but the authors are members of a group whose web site has since gone dead. If a non-self published source was found, they should only be quoted once, not twice.
*Crimethinc's self-published pamphlet can't be used as an opinion about third parties or their films. And what they write is obviously propaganda, especially since just watching the film barely anything was said except that there were a bunch of people calling themselves anarchists smashing things up and that the central characters objected. So POV is another big problem. 
Of course, I found an obnoxious Reason Mag. blog entry quote that would just barely comply with wiki rules, and if the above is wp:rs that sure is too and will be added :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources Self-Publshed and Non-notable

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Battle in Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080827070356/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp? to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?&rid=9826
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified