Talk:The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film)

message: Does anyone have a direct link to Heffer's article about this film? I can't find it on the Telegraph site, and the reference given points to a completely different article. 217.155.20.163 19:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...if you look at the linked page, the second item is "Black is white in northern Ireland", but for some reason this link no longer works (it used to, I can vouch for that)- at the bottom of the page, you can still see the comments replying to Heffer's "review" of the film, but there is no longer any sign of the article. I know that newspapers do archive their pages from time to time, I guess this is what's happened. I suppose the reference will just have to be changed to "Black is white in northern Ireland", Simon Heffer, Daily Telegraph, June 3, 2006... Camillus (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simon Heffer 

message: Links were removed for the following reasons:
*[8] - International Marxist Tendency: decided to keep one article from Socialist Worker - section too loaded with Marxist reviews otherwise
*The Wind that Shakes the Barley on Britfilms.com: better link is the Internet Films Database, which is what most other film articles on Wikipedia link to in this section
*"The most powerful film I've seen" - review from An Phoblacht, 1 June 2006: solid reason: requires registration to see it
*Interview with Ken Loach about the film from Socialist Worker, 10th June 2006: already one link to the Socialist Worker - do not want to bias the section
*"Powerful portrayal of rebel Cork" - review from An Phoblacht, 22 June 2006: solid reason: requires registration to see it
*Black & Tans were "no angels" - major concession by Loach critics! - An Phoblacht, 6 July 2006: solid reason: requires registration to see it
*review from the website of Socialist Democracy (Ireland), 23 July 2006: already have a link to a socialist review of the film - do not want to bias the section
*"Loach: The Coronation Street Of Class Struggle" - review from Soundtracksforthem/Indymedia Ireland, July 1 2006: site is not really noteworthy
This section could do with some other external links to balance out the socialist analysis that is already there in the one article linked to the Socialist Worker. Logica 02:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: When the men are walking in the fog w/ the stolen motorcycle right before the ambush on the tans, what song are they singing? ty
:: The song they are singing is: Óró 'Sé do bheatha 'bhaile ,  The song has been recorded by numerous Irish artists including The Clancy Brothers, The Wolfetones, Carmel Quinn and  many others. It is a "Rebel Song" mostly sung in Irish but occasionally in English too . The theme of the song is similar to that of Four Green Fields i.e. the welcoming home of an old woman (Ireland) who was sold into bondage - the analgy to the time (1916-1922) being the rebirth of Ireland through independance from Britain. These songs were popular at that time and through the 1970s but the new generations of Irish prefer to forget them or relegate them to history - it is not "politically correct" to sing them anymore in Ireland - "the war is over"  However they do retain an ongoing level of popularity within Irish circles outside of Ireland even though for the most part the listeners are seduced by the tune lively tune and chorus rather than understanding the meaning as most do not understand Irish. Hope that this is useful  Vono 18:18, 29 April 2007
The song is indeed Óró 'Sé do bheatha 'bhaile. The lyrics of the version from the movie were written by Patrick Pearse of 1916 fame. The air of the song, however, predates Pearse's version and is taken from a Jacobite song from the eighteenth century about the return Searlas Óg/Bonny Prince Charles the son of James II. While traditional Irish music does not enjoy the popularity it once did, to say that Irish people wish to "forget" or "relegate" these songs to history is entirely incorrect. As alluded to many artists have covered this song over the years, one of the most recent being Sinead O'Connor on her 2002 album Sean Nos Nua. That the song is not "politically correct" is spurious with the song being sung on Irish National Television during the recent "Charity You're a Star"(an Irish version of the X-Factor/American Idol talent show). Cliste 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  songs 

message: The references to the Monbiot article commenting on Tim Luckhurst make insinuations that he did not see the film because the Guardian do not have a record of him attending a screening and that he did not wish to comment. This evidence by itself is clearly not enough to support the insinuation, and it is very damaging to Luckhurst. Thus, the information is clearly not notable because it does not support anything, but instead makes implicit insinuations that Wikipedia should not deal in. If there are no objections, I am removing it. Logoistic 16:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say the Guardian has no record of Luckhurst attending a screening, it says that the production company has no such record. It is clear that this is within the timeframe before the film was released, so one is given to wonder how Luckhurst could deliver the criticism of it he did. Nick Cooper 16:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nick, you took the words right out of my mouth. This sourced material must not be removed, especially while Luckhurst's comparison of Loach to a Nazi is allowed to stand in the article. The only way that Luckhurst could have seen the film before going to press was at a production company screening, and they are the ones who say he did not attend. If he had actually seen the film, he would have told The Guardian that he had, but instead he refused to comment, which damages him, but is damage of his own making. Logoistic, your other edits do seem to give a better neutral tone, but your removal of this part of the article is not NPOV. The material is absolutely pertinent, given Luckhurst's inflammatory Riefenstahl comparison, which is what opened him to scrutiny. The material does not insinuate -- it is absolutely verifiable, and whether or not a critic actually saw the film before condemning it so incredibly harshly is absolutely pertinent to the Responses section of this article. I ask respectfully that you please do not remove it again. --Melty girl 16:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I misread - I thought it was the Guardian record we were talking about, not the production company. I take it back then. Logoistic 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks. --Melty girl 22:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tim Luckhurst 

message: Kingstowngalway, it is rare that someone works on a plot synopsis, for nine months with no sign of stopping. Is there any way to get you to see that obsessively changing the wording in this section, usually by lengthening it (it's already too long) and making other violations of MOS:FILM is a pointless exercise? Most of your wording changes do not improve anything -- obsessively swapping in synonyms of your own words that you've already changed countless times only makes lateral moves. At a certain point, I started undoing your changes, because you're spinning your wheels, gradually worsening the prose, and slowly making the section longer and longer (the edit history is there for anyone to see). The only thing that you've managed to stop doing as much is adding as much biased material.
Meanwhile, all other editors are rebuffed from trying to improve this article -- who would want to try to contribute when they can see that you seem likely to go on for years changing the wording, even if someone was to come along and give it the rewrite and word cut it should have? Is there any way that you're going to let go of this plot section? After nine months, you should have been able to retell this rather short story as effectively as is possible for one person to do. This is a finite topic, not something to be researched and updated constantly like a bio of a living person or an academic subject. Revisiting this plot over and over seems rather bizarre. Where is the endpoint for you? And why don't you respect community policies or the other editors above who have tried to help get you on a better path? --Melty girl 19:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are Kingstowngalway and Melty girl married?  To each other, I mean.  It would explain a lot.  Just curious.Twins Too! (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that the impression you get? Really? --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you have a very dark view of marriage. This is a strange comment coming from someone who also tried fruitlessly to reason with Kingstowngalway. I suppose it's not the end of the world if this particular Wikipedia article is held hostage forever by Kingstowngalway, but it's also not particularly helpful for you to mock other editors. --Melty girl 04:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: </deirony>Here's the thing, Melty girl:  you're right 95% of the time, on substance; but you're just as over the top in tone.  You need to take a long break.  (I don't bother to give K. the same advice because it obviously wouldn't do any good.)  We'll hold the fort and revert every silly edit.  I promise.  As for criticizing me for mockery, you must be ... mocking me?Twins Too! (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was being sarcastic with my marriage quip. Sorry you think I'm over the top, but don't you think the situation that Kingstowngalway has created is a bit over the top? And do you care to name your specific problem with my tone after nine months of an editor repeatedly doing the same thing over and over to this article, despite repeated discussion? It seems a little bit insulting to tell me to take a break and say that "we" (who's "we"?) will "hold the fort" when no one else but me has been holding their finger in the dike. I'll believe it when I see it, but I'll be very happy to see it. I'll be even happier when this article starts moving forward instead of just trying to hold on to the bad status quo... Melty girl 04:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lateral moves and length creepage 

message: I managed to cull unnecessary details from and refocus the plot section, as well as get the length back down below 700 words, as per the MOS:FILM guideline. Please, please, please don't bog it down again.
It's been a year of this nonsense, Kingstowngalway, and a lot of discussion with multiple editors hasn't sunk in. This isn't supposed to be a blow-by-blow and it's not supposed to be long. If you can restrain yourself, please do (don't know if you're able to). --Melty girl 05:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You make edits so constantly, it's impossible to discuss each one. But I will mention one type of problem you consistently introduce. You don't need to add the adjective "violently" when the next phrase says that Teddy's fingernails are pulled out! It's redundant: obviously, the pulling out of fingernails is violent. Likewise, you don't need to say Damien "personally" shot the spies -- if you simply say Damien shot someone, then obviously he himself personally did the shooting. This is one kind of thing that you do that is redundant and adds unnecessary length. --Melty girl 07:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot now within [[WP:FilmPlot]] length and detail guidelines 

message: A section on historical accuracy is undoubtedly valuable; the quotations provided are described as being what "critics have noted" and it is clearly verifiable that critics have indeed made those observations.  If any critics are on record as having praised the film on grounds of historical accuracy then that too can be noted.Thoskit (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the references provided in that section do not pass muster.  Find some references that meet WP criteria for notability and verifiability, and then we will talk. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Accuracy section 

message: ::::::::::I am not an editor just an interested party who likes to see context and balance
i.e. that all arguments or beliefs do have, in fact, contrary and opposing points of view. Sic truth.
I added the historical accuracy section because, after watching, the movie I was piqued by some of its emotive elements such as the indiscriminate killings and the sectarianism.
This lead me to read several wikipedia articles on the Anglo Irish War and the Irish Civil War and also several reviews of the film which questioned the films historical contexts.
But almost as soon as I had created a section entitled Historical accuracy  an editor (called RepublicanJacobite, hmmm no strong and NPOV issues there, me thinks!!) deleted it under the usual  auspices that the references don't suffice.
*yawn
The 'reference line' is always peddled when an editor has issue with some one else's point of view! As most articles on wikipedia are under referenced (but most of them don't hold contentious POVs - unless you want to argue about the manufacturing processes involved in making Butt Plugs or the educational merits of Pokemon et al and etc')
Ironically if you care to look at the website from which the information came:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/
Yep opendemocracy.net the foremost site on the web for open-minded and fair opinion, now decried as a poor place for unsourced references. I'll remember not to believe a word again on that 'duplicitous' site!!
The simple problem here, is you have two editors who have a very jaundiced opinion on Ireland. They are both American who have been brought up in staunchly republican families, whose ancestors, rather than stay in Ireland, left and emigrated to 'the land of opportunity'. (Remember the grass is always greener on the other side).
This article, as it stands, is idolising *their* understanding of the war for Irish Independance, in fact, all I tried to do was help the 'lazy reader' who can't be bothered to read half a dozen seperate articles about the period by creating context by noting and acknowledging that elements of the plot in the film did occur but there are historical differences. People should understand why The Wind That Shakes the Barley is a WORK OF FICTION!  
But according to the editor named MeltyGirl, a section entitled Historical accuracy has no place in this article as it's all about the film The Wind That Shakes The Barley; it's not a history lesson. So is that a new Wikipedia policy? All films covering historical events can't be analysed. Well, we should all get over to Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers articles, and make some changes Pronto!!  Or are we just cherry picking here!?
 
Or is MeltyGirl simply trying to say don't put anything in this article that gets in the way of *her* unchallenged view of history which this movie portrays perfectly?
Which really comes down is whether the cruelty of the British in the Irish War of Independence was commonplace or isolated and sporadic, hence this quote from opendemocracy.net:
What is far more contentious is whether any of [the brutality] – except the swearing – was commonplace, routine, or typical of British behaviour as the film implies, or how far it was sanctioned by political or military leaders. Many historians argue that such incidents were rare, isolated, unauthorised and indeed were denounced, sometimes severely punished, by the authorities. Wind, on that view, doesn't entirely invent anything, but does mislead by selection and implication
I don't know but that was what the historical accuracy section was for!! So using this logic, RepublicanJacobite and MeltyGil must by reason believe that, for example, Errol Flynn's They Died With Their Boots On is an accurate telling of Battle of the Little Big Horn!!
The Irish War of Independence was a bloody period fought between British troops, Auxillaries and the IRA. Yet historically speaking more irish men, women and children were killed by their fellow countrymen in the Irish Civil War than in the preceding conflict!! Please read the aforementioned article. 
I brought balance; others bring an agenda. But par for the course on the revisionist soap box (Sic RepublicanJacobite,MeltyGirl) that is Wikipedia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.93.59 (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, it's fiction. Ugh. Sadly, I do not have time to argue this out more fully. But I will simply take issue with your contention that you brought "balance." The point here, at this Wikipedia article, is not to "balance" the film's viewpoint -- and it certainly does have a viewpoint, there's no denying that. The point here is to document what the film was about, who made it, what their viewpoint was, how it was made and distributed, how much money it made, and how the film was received (info on the controversy about its reception is already present in the article). We are not here to provide alternate viewpoints to the film's perspective on history -- other filmmakers and writers can do that, and audiences of this film and other films can decide for themselves what they think. Go argue about history on a history article. This WP article is meant to be about what was presented by this film, whether some people like what the film had to say or not. And besides all that, the Historical accuracy section only presented one perspective on history, so references aside, it in and of itself was not balanced anyway. But anyway, this article should not devolve into a Irish history battle. The film is what it is, and it's our role to report on that. If you don't like the film, go work on an article for a film that says something you agree with. --Melty girl 04:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I understand your feeling upon the subject of maintaining a NPOV on ALL articles on WP you have to agree that this site has certain formated layouts for almost each and every genre and films are no different. Articles which have a contentious theme at their heart are always going to subject of 'wording' and 'editing' issues and film such as this is no different and can often lead to 'edit wars' between editors. If the talk page was used to discuss these issues then a more civil tone would be maintained all partys.  (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those were not my comments; I merely restored them after another editor tried to silence the anonymous editor by deleting his comments. Dppowell (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Regards the historical accuracy section, I was asked to comment on it by Thoskit. I certainly needs some work, better attribution (and perhaps a new section title), but I'm not sure I agree with its deletion in entirety. Rather than arguing over whether http://www.opendemocracy.net/ is reliable (rather pointless, because it is a source of opinion pieces), it may be more relevant to ask: who wrote the material being sourced and how notable or reliable is their opinion in context? In this case it appears to be Stephen Howe, academic . Just a thought. Rockpocket 00:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks Thoskit!! Historical Accuracy supporter 

message: The article says the final execution scene was filmed in Cork City Gaol, but the referenced provided is about Kilmainham Gaol, and said reference says the film was shot there.  So, which is it?  Clearly, if it's Cork City, we need a source that says so. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cork City or Kilmainham Gaol? 

message: The recurring "historical accuracy" section has been removed (again) because it consists of original research, specifically synthesis of the film's content with other writings not directly related to the film. This is contrary to WP tenets. One source article (counterpunch.org) is only tangentially a review of the film (it mentions reviews of the film, but is not a review itself) and does not support the copy to which it is attached. The other source (Coogan) cannot be a source since it was published a dozen years before the film premiered. Finally, the relevance of an "historical accuracy" section is problematic since the film is fiction, not a documentary; as such, no pretense of accuracy is claimed nor should be inferred. If the story's depiction of historical events engenders a significant reaction and credible sources see fit to react to that, then maybe that information should appear in the Reception section if it is not mere trivia.173.72.140.146 (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put! I second the motion. --Melty girl 03:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Historical accuracy section 

message: Can one of the people reverting this please explain their reasoning?70.20.108.19 (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has just been re-applied (twice), this time misspelled as 'Historical innacuracy', and again without justification. The onus to make a case for its inclusion has not even been attempted. So much for consensus! RashersTierney (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

text: And how is a title 'Historical innacuracy' less biased? RashersTierney (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe something like "alleged historical innacuracy" would be better. PatGallacher (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

text: 2 points; spelling of 'inaccuracy' and the more substantive one of Original Research. Whether a Marxist view accurately reflects the conflict will always be down to POV, but if the film has been criticised for that reason then a specific quote to that effect is necessary, certainly not the general one given. I think we agree that a sweeping critique of Marxism is beyond the scope of this article, ostensibly about a film. RashersTierney (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The material must be about the film to be in the article. As mentioned above, a specific reference to the film from Decoding the IRA would do much to argue inclusion. I don't have access to the work, so I can't say with certainty whether it does or does not mention the film, so I'm going to leave it up to the original contributor (or someone else) to provide film-relevant material (with a page cite). In the mean time, there's no reason to keep the material since it does not clearly mention the film. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the book, and can confirm no material supposedly sourced by it should be in this article. The part about the IRA being a petite bourgeoisie organisation is talking about the IRA in the mid-1920s, not during the War of Independence. Worse still, the book does not even mention the film. This is obvious original research, using a book that does not even mention the film and is talking about the IRA during a later period of history is a long way across the line of acceptable editing. O Fenian (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "an article containing inaccuracies" 

message: It's been a while since I've watched this movie, but I don't remember anyone speaking Irish in it.  Am I wrong?Prezbo (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: During the scene in which the British have imprisoned the Brigade, there is a certain ammount of speaking in the Irish language. The Soldier's Song, Ireland's national anthem, is also sung in Irish. Kingstowngalway (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm sorry, I had forgotten that.Prezbo (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Key questions to consider: are subtitles in English provided? If not, is comprehension of Irish necessary to understanding the events and action of the film? The Film Style Guidelines state for Infoboxes, "Insert the language primarily used in the film. Databases often give every language spoken within the film, even if they only reflect a few lines in the overall script. Only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films, enter separate entries with a line break." Based on what's mentioned above by Kingstowngalway, it appears English is the "primary" language and should be the only one mentioned in the Infobox. Keep in mind that by putting "Irish" in this Infobox, the film article is automatically categorized as an Irish language film. Would that be accurate? Jim Dunning | talk 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Language" in infobox 

message: I'm not convinced about calling this an "Irish film" in the opening sentence. The fact that it takes place in Ireland is not enough. Throughout the article it is variously described as an "Irish film", and "international co-production" (referring to 8 countries), "British independent film", "European film" and "British film". I suggest ammending "Irish film" to just "film". The remaining sentence makes it very clear that the film takes place during a pivotal moment in Irish history without being misleading about country of origin;
"The Wind That Shakes the Barley is a 2006 war drama film directed by Ken Loach, set during the Irish War of Independence (1919–1922) and the Irish Civil War (1922–1923)."
I will make the change now. Please post here if you would like to discuss this. BananaBork (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish film 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206144530/http://www.bandonscouts.com:80/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album26 to http://www.bandonscouts.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album26
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927005212/http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?ite=1092 to http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?ite=1092
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081115053537/http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6647&news_iv_ctrl=1861 to http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6647&news_iv_ctrl=1861
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224151122/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/meehan11112006.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/meehan11112006.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921050748/http://www.goireland.com/BLOG/Article/Kilmainham-Gaol.html to http://www.goireland.com/BLOG/article/Kilmainham-Gaol.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bandonscouts.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album26
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080328232601/http://www.timeout.com/film/news/523/?cpage=6&ccat=1 to http://www.timeout.com/film/news/523/?cpage=6&ccat=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070430022822/http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/information/news/?p=D424399A0a54317528YjSmACEA19 to http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/information/news/?p=D424399A0a54317528YjSmACEA19
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120506182349/http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume14/issue5/reviews/?id=114103 to http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume14/issue5/reviews/?id=114103
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At present the section includes criticism by Simon Heffer (who admitted he hadn't seen it), Michael Gove (who apparently wasn't in Cannes so hadn't seen it at the time of his review, and according to George Monbiot it seems he hadn't seen it), Ruth Dudley Edwards (who also admitted she hadn't seen the film when reviewing it) and Tim Luckhurst (who also hadn't seen it, according to George Monbiot). It's one thing to have criticism of a film from people to have actually seen it, but to include criticism from four people who haven't seen the film seems somewhat unusual. FDW777 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there has been no attempt to justify the opinions of people who hadn't even seen the film, I have removed them. FDW777 (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight in 'Reception' section