Talk:Guerrilla filmmaking

Tag

Should we have a tag on this page, and if so should it be classified? Since it's just a redirect.... in the meantime back to stub --24.97.179.166 13:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've NA'd it since it's currently a redirect. I should note, however, that the correct spelling of the first word is guerrilla (two r's), so it's actually this title which should be the article and the other which should be the redirect. Girolamo Savonarola 18:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. IrishGuy ^talk 19:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As Arri SR3 16mm film cameras are visible during many shots in Dave Chapelle's Block Party, i removed it from the list of films shot digitally. Even if the documentary parts are, it's inclusion is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.104.154 (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Guerrilla filmmaking

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Guerrilla filmmaking's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "DariusJames":

• From Melvin Van Peebles: James, Darius (1995). That's Blaxploitation!: Roots of the Baadasssss 'Tude (Rated X by an All-Whyte Jury. ISBN 0-312-13192-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• From Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song: James, Darius (1995). That's Blaxploitation!: Roots of the Baadasssss 'Tude (Rated X by an All-Whyte Jury. ISBN 0-312-13192-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Unnatural writing

Something is wrong with this page, it is extremely unnaturally written and requires a major cleanup. E.g. "One day, Godless Darren Aronofsky, celebrated US filmmaker, had to make his God, and his God is narrative film. Moreover, assuming that «the way to the heart is through the body», submits art to entertainment. He is certainly right with such assumption, which has been proven by modern neuroscience. Having grown up within a Jewish family, Aronofsky is affected to biblical stories. Biblical stories inspire him to make surreal and disturbing films «well known for their often violent subject matter». Almost all generate serious controversy. Aronofsky does not bother with it at all. Serious controversy helps make good money: The Wrestler, Black Swan, Noah." Christiaanjmeyer (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Expanded article reverted to stub

“Guerrilla filmmaking” article was reverted to previous stub on November 14. We were then improving the first three and last paragraphs. The reason for reversal was simply lack of reliable sources. Regardless of keeping quiet and doing no more edits, next day I was abruptly blocked for 15 days. All I could do in the meantime was arguing at my talk page to show that something was wrong. And so I did:

FACTS

1 – I expanded Guerrilla filmmaking page with vast information that improved its quality. I added unquestionable references to reliable sources, including links to numerous articles and reviews of The NY Times and to other texts by qualified scholars from several universities. Over 90 references were made.

2 – The article was reverted to a poor old stub having just one reference. The argument used to reversal was lack of reliable sources in the expanded article. I was accused of abuse and blocked for 15 days.

3 – No other reason was given to the reversal or to the blocking.

Great!

EVIDENCE:

Typical example of hobby subcultures practiced for self-satisfaction, in many cases with disastrous consequences, by an increasing number of Wikipedians having a low cultural level, by others exceeding themselves in knowledge, by administrators abusing their power and contradicting principles they should respect. See article by Virginia Postrel.

RETREAT

To administrator JamesBWatson, a mathematician, who blocked me, I replied at my talk page with “FACTS” (above), in vain. Curiously, next day I received a kind message by user MichaelQSchmidt proposing me «a decent option» to redeem my sins: first rewriting the article with no «source not accepted as reliable» and then submitting a draft to user Cirt. Cirt – the bold warrior who reverses my work and harshly punishes me supported by a group of fellows –, would be my master, my judge and my censor as soon as I had concluded a painstaking period of forced labor. Generous man!!!

“Reliable sources” is one thing, sources “not accepted” as reliable is another. Easy oratory is the sign that makes one suspect that the real issue is not sources but something ugly, unutterable, that, in mild meaning and right words, would be unfair play, manipulation, charade. Others may be uttered if you feel these are too mild.

CONCLUSION

No serious reason can be argued for maintaining a rudimentary article with poor content and meager references when it was significantly expanded and improved, besides having been widely enriched with unquestionable secondary sources.

Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 02h,05, 01 December 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the admin that blocked you. You were blocked for repeatedly adding unsourced content and poorly sourced content. You picked up exact same behavior pattern after your block expired. Including adding unsourced content to a WP:BLP page. Your changes to this article page here are against consensus at WT:FILM. — Cirt (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The main issue here is violations of WP:V and WP:RS. — Cirt (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio concerns

Please see http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tertulius&oldid=636138110#Copyright_problem:_Guerrilla_filmmaking and the next few subsections for some copyvio concerns with this article page.

Moonriddengirl was also notified by TomStar81, here. — Cirt (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Read IMPROVED ARTICLE before reversal to old stub

FOUR QUOTES

QUOTE 1 - «(…) Wikipedia and its stated ambition to “compile the sum of all human knowledge” are in trouble. The volunteer workforce that built the project’s flagship, the English-language Wikipedia – and must defend it against vandalism, hoaxes, and manipulation – has shrunk by more than a third since 2007 and is still shrinking.»

QUOTE 2 - «The number of active editors on the English-language Wikipedia peaked in 2007 at more than 51,000 and has been declining ever since as the supply of new ones got choked off. This past summer only 31,000 people could be considered active editors.»

QUOTE 3 - «When asked to identify Wikipedia’s real problem, Moran cites the bureaucratic culture that has formed around the rules and guidelines on contributing, which have become labyrinthine over the years. The page explaining a policy called Neutral Point of View, one of “five pillars” fundamental to Wikipedia, is almost 5,000 words long. “That is the real barrier: policy creep,” he says.»

QUOTE 4 - «Today’s Wikipedia, even with its middling quality and poor representation of the world’s diversity, could be the best encyclopedia we will get.»

Read IMPROVED ARTICLE before reversal to old stub

QUOTES FROM The Decline of Wikipedia – Article by Tom Simonite, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, October 22, 2013

Ulissipus (User talk:Ulissipus) 18h,44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)