Talk:The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert

Broken Link

The link to Cindy Pastel doesn't exist. Maybe someone could make an entry for Cindy in Wikipeida. --Khalidabdulkhaleqabdulla 21:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Concerns

I didn't want to just tag this non-neutral, but I have some issues with the following:

The film explored gay stereotypes without always reverting to those stereotypes just for a cheap laugh. The main characters were neither sinners, nor evil (like many gay, lesbian, and transgender characters in early film) nor perfect, saintly martyrs (i.e Philadelphia), but rather fully formed characters with strengths and flaws.

These two statements are decidedly POV. I haven't seen the film, however, and I'd like to ask/encourage someone who has to try to clean this section up just a bit. Thanks! --S0uj1r0 08:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the film (several times) and I have just tried for about an hour to re-write that paragraph into something coherent. It needs to be more scholarly and frankly what that paragraph is trying to express is way too complicated and abstract. I give up, but I don't think it should be deleted either. Lontano 12:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely contravenes NPOV! Format 02:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Man with cart?

Anyone else recall this man wearing futuristic tonic suit pulling a cart or trolley of some sort running with some kinda of strobe light on an antenna on the cart? What's the deal with that? He made 2-3 appearance over the film and on one occasion Felicia attempted to say hi to him. --Kvasir 01:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

i think they just wanted to toss in a random weird joke. it did seem very out of place though, if anyone knows what's up with that, do please add it. --dan 06:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The joke is from the begining of the film where they are seen leaving Sydney along with a woman who is said to be running across Australia in some sort of round-the-clock marathon. The joke is that she is running as fast as they can drive.Nleamy 04:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

oo it was a woman then! Thanks for the explanation. --Kvasir 07:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Stated opening date of musical version now past

Does anyone know if the musical version did open on the projected date given? If so, can they tweak the future into the past tense? Tx. Nat 15:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Done and further revision welcomed. Conrad T. Pino 10:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Trumpet

"A joke, explaining where Trumpet got his name, was omitted for the film's US release, but later released on the Special Edition DVD." The article should say who Trumpet is, yes? Nat 15:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I found out, and tweaked. Nat 10:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Stage adaptation

The stage adaptation has it's own Priscilla Queen of the Desert - the Musical article. The stage adaptation content in the film article is long in comparison to film article's length. I suggest moving the bulk of the stage adaptation commentary to that article. Conrad T. Pino 10:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Most the material about the stage adaptation should be removed. 70.116.1.237 (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oscars

What did the film win the Oscars for? Anyone know? Vauxhall1964 20:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it won for costume design —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.30.255.45 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Some fancy descriptors for the characters

An IP editor has recently changed the description of the three main characters. It was "three drag queens, one of whom is a transsexual and the other two are homosexuals.". It is now "three drag queens, one of whom is a heterosexual transwoman and the other two are homosexual cismen".

I'm reasonably well read, but I've never come across the terms transwoman and cismen. They may well be accurate, but I haven't ever seen such terms used to describe the characters before. I haven't looked at all the references (some are to a book I don't have), but there's no hint that those words are used in any of them.

If the terms are accurate, I guess they're doing no harm, except confusing people not close to the LGBT scene. They did look a bit odd and made up when I first saw them, so I reverted the changes, but our IP editor de-reverted with an edit summary including "huh? " and "what gives?". He/she seems fairly committed to the change. I'm not touching the changes again until we have a bit of discussion on the matter.

HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Felicia" may be gay, but "Mitzi" (Hugo Weaving) is not necessarily. He has a family... not all drag queens are gay, many are in heterosexual relationships. Mitzi just wants to act as a woman, no more. No where in the film does he commit to homosexual acts. Please change it. --82.82.149.59 (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting POV

I just removed a claim that the involvement of Jason Donovan in the musical version of the film is "interesting" given the references to Kylie Minogue in the script. Firstly it is unreferenced. Also it is POV. Also, it is not really very "interesting" given that the main co-star of Donovan and Mingoue throughout their Neighbours stint, was Guy Pearce, who played a lead role in the original The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert film. Format (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Song performed in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert :I Will Survive

Greetings all,

Been hunting for information on the song performed in the movie. I Will Survive by Gloria Gaynor in the movie had some incredible backing performance and vocals mixed in from the cast extras that were Aboriginal Australians. Was there ever an actual song rendition of this. I have the soundtrack with the original song and a remix. I would much prefer finding a copy fully produced from how it was presented in the movie itself.

Thanks to anyone who can provide me with any information on this.

Sincerely, Ham Channell

As far as I know, it was not released a version of this mix of the song you mention. However if you are interested in the original score of this movie, there is an album called "The Priscilla Companion" with the instrumental songs composed specifically for this movie by Guy Gross. I added this information on Wikipedia as you can see in (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Adventures_of_Priscilla,_Queen_of_the_Desert&diff=610243968&oldid=610243836) But user HiLo48 deleted it allegedly that my source was uncertain, even though I added the correspondent sources but he ignored them deleting again and again. I have a mix of the song "I will Survive" with the chants you make reference to direct from the movie audio track. If you're interested contact me with your e-mail and I will share it.

Sincerely, Takeh (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. 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/20110915100612/http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/2006/08/logo-list-50-greatest-lgbt-fil.html to http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/2006/08/logo-list-50-greatest-lgbt-fil.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. 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/20091114210830/http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/to_wong_foo_thanks_for_everything_julie_newmar/ to http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/to_wong_foo_thanks_for_everything_julie_newmar/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Anon here requesting this be added to Category:Films about buses

Thanks! 2607:FEA8:80A0:1270:65C7:3438:BB07:897 (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Post-Production "Deleted scene" information incorrect, not sure how to source a citation of such evidence

The section on post-production says the following:

"On the advice of early viewers, the film was shortened and scenes such as Adam's flashback about his paedophilic uncle were cut out."

Anyone who owns the film on blu-ray will know that the stated flashback appears at 30 minutes into the movie and is not cut. Has this been reinstated on home video releases, or was it never cut in the first place? In any case this should be changed but as I don't see this information elsewhere online I'm not sure what to cite; it's easily disprovable for anyone who owns a copy of the movie. Even if the information is in the cited book, then that source must be incorrect. Is the veracity of the claim that the film was shortened on the advice of early viewers also thrown into question by this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmbroseCadwell (talk • contribs) 00:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Portrayal of Filipina character

I’m sure there was a lot of concern about the negative stereotyping of the Filipina character. It certainly upset me when I saw the film on its original release. I’m surprised it isn’t mentioned here. 49.186.57.84 (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Racism and sexism controversy. DonQuixote (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

What?? No mention of the Abba turd?

How is this so?? 192.84.52.10 (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Soundtrack section: although it was later decided that an ABBA song would be more appropriate because [of] its "tacky qualities" DonQuixote (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of Awards table

@Koavf: For now, I have reinstated the Awards table you deleted. Rather than get into an edit war, please itemise specific parts of the table you believe violate WP policies. Chrisdevelop (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

All unsourced information needs a source. Have you read WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP? Are you familiar with these policies and your obligation to provide sources if you re-add unsourced information? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you please specify which parts of this table you believe are 'unsourced'? Chrisdevelop (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

All of the table: none of it has any citation in this article. You also did not answer my questions. Please answer my questions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} should be used in preference to deletion of a contribution, especially in this case, a longstanding table that has so painstakingly been prepared by other editors. CN should be used only for contributions that are likely to be challenged. All the entries in the table are easy to verify for such a notable film. I don't accept your view that none of them are verifiable, or that every one of them needs a citation. Moreoever, if you click the links in the table, they branch to WP articles where the relevant credit is supplied. For examnple the very first award mentioned branches to AACTA_Award_for_Best_Film where the subject is listed. Chrisdevelop (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me: do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that anything was unverifiable. You are not reading what I'm writing and that's very frustrating if we're going to have a constructive conversation. I will ask you again: have you read WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP? Do you know that Wikipedia cannot be a source for Wikipedia? Do you know that all content on Wikipedia that is about a living person must have a source? It's concerning to me that you cannot or will not answer these simple questions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you very much did, when you said "All of the table" was unsourced. 'Sources' are provided in the articles inked to; for example the official website https://www.aacta.org/ lists the awards linked to from AACTA Award for Best Film. The AACTA Awards article itself lists 64 citations. It is perfectly straightforward to verify this.

From the OR article you adduced: 'The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.' This is simply not true of this table. The articles I have drilled down to from the table all lead to long established awards. To provide a citation for every single entry in a table produces unwarranted clutter.

'"verifiability" means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source'.

Again, I ask you to be specific about which entries on the table you are claiming are likely to be challenged, and for which no reliable source exists as above.

Alternatively, we can throw this open to a formal dispute. Chrisdevelop (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It is unsourced. That does not mean it cannot be sourced. Again, please do not misconstrue what I wrote. I keep on having to ask you the same questions over and over again: "I will ask you again: have you read WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP?" If you actually look at WP:V it says (bold in the original): "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". If you read this (I guess you haven't), why did you add this material without an inline citation? If you read WP:BLP, you know that there is an even higher standard of proof than for the rest of the encyclopedia, so why are you adding claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course I have read all those articles, and I quoted already from them in previous replies, which you appear to be skim-reading. I never claimed "living persons lost awards". But if that's an issue, you can flag it without deleting the entire table.

I see you also removed this title from Category:BAFTA Awards, yet on the BAFTA official website, the award is listed: http://awards.bafta.org/award/1995/film/costume-design

I will file this as a formal dispute. Chrisdevelop (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Please stop adding unsourced information to Wikipedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I have filed it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#The_Adventures_of_Priscilla,_Queen_of_the_Desert Chrisdevelop (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Table of Awards

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The table listing the Awards has no citations.

It was removed from the article by this edit, because it is unsourced: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Adventures_of_Priscilla%2C_Queen_of_the_Desert&diff=1156503955&oldid=1152957036

It was then restored to the article by this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Adventures_of_Priscilla%2C_Queen_of_the_Desert&diff=1157091434&oldid=1157090908

Should the table be removed from the article as long as it is unsourced? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The choices are to remove the unsourced table, or to retain the table. If citations are added to the table, this RFC can be closed as overtaken by events. Enter Yes or Remove or Delete in the Survey to remove the table, with a brief supporting statement. Enter No or Keep in the Survey to keep the table, with a brief supporting statement. Do not reply to other statements in the Survey. The Discussion section is provided for back-and-forth discussion.

Survey

• Keep The removing editor has not identified any problem with the table that would justify its removal. Being unsourced is not in itself a problem. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep The deleting editor User:Koavf asks: “Why are you adding claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations?” Out of the three Wikipedia policy violations adduced by the editor (WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP), only WP:BLP warrants deletion without discussion, otherwise if the table is disappeared from view, future editors will be unlikely to add inline citations, perhaps being unaware it ever existed. If the deleting editor can demonstrate I added claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations, then I will agree to the removal of such claims, but not to the deletion of the table. If the deleting editor can likewise show which contributions in the table have no reliable, published sources or that are likely to be challenged out of the blue, and why, after remaining unchallenged for 7 years and 2 million views, then he can add citations himself, rather than making this someone else's problem. The proper way to flag a need for inline citations is by {{citations needed}}, not arbitrary deletion of the entire Awards table. This Awards table is a directory table; it is not plain, unverified black text, it links to articles that provide sources. Users can easily find verification. However if it is agreed this table is too compromised to be allowed to remain in the article, this will act as a precedent impacting all the linked-to tables and other directory tables that do not have inline citations either, such as AACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies, which is but one of perhaps thousands more such tables that link to articles containing requisite verifiable sources, but do not themselves include inline citations either, yet which the deleting editor has left intact for as yet undisclosed reasons. Just as clicking a link to another article exits the article, an inline citation sends the reader elsewhere for verification; a link to another article that contains the verification is sufficient to uphold verifiability, otherwise a hapless volunteer will need to add 100 or so citations for AACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies more than doubling the article's citation count, when the information is already in the articles linked to. If the decision to delete the Priscilla Awards table without discussion is upheld, then AACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies has to be deleted too, presumably by User:Koavf who can defend his action on its Talk page, if someone notices it's disappeared. I view deleting without discussion a table that has stood unchallenged for 7 years with 2 million views as deletionism. Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Although the table has now been sourced I thought I would just comment. The table should have been kept, although marked with {{citations needed}}. Of course the table needs sourcing, as does the table at AACTA Awards. But that doesn't mean it needs to be immediately removed. It should be removed of the tags are added and after sometime it remains unsourced. However if content is challenged it must be sourced per WP:BURDEN, this is policy and not avoidable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that concerns about sources should be flagged with {{citations needed}}, because once the contribution has been deleted, no-one see the table to add citations. Future editors may not even be aware the Awards table ever existed. There remains however the WP:BLP contention by the deleting editor that claims were made in the table "that living persons lost awards". WP:BLP is grounds for immediate deletion without discussion, and so the table may still be deleted on these grounds unless the deleting editor withdraws this flag. Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Awards in table are now sourced. Schazjmd (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, that was quick! Do you agree that the table should have been deleted, but for your addition of citations? Do you think AACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies should be deleted for the same reason given by the deleting editor unless every cell has an inline citation? Also do you agree with the deleting editor that WP:BLP still warrants deletion of the Awards table without discussion? Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with the WP:BLP and WP:OR arguments, but WP:V was also mentioned. Per WP:BURDEN content shouldn't be restored without inline citations was it's challenged. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I guessed someone would do it, but I'm concerned that this legitimatizes Koavf's actions. If someone wants to voluntarily add sources that's one thing, but editors shouldn't have free rein to hold content hostage in order to force others to do non-essential work. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Once the contribution has been deleted, no-one can see it to provide inline citations. That was why I restored it, and then immediately filed a dispute, which led us here to this RFC. I agree with User:Sojourner in the earth that "editors shouldn't have free rein to hold content hostage in order to force others to do non-essential work." Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• The length of time something has been in an article has no bearing to whether it should remain. If the information is likely correct but unreferenced it should be tagged with {{citations needed}}, and only removed if it has remained unsourced for sometime. It should only be initially removed if the editor beleives the content to be dubious. On the other side editors must source their content, and this can't be done to Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested: I see you've now tagged AACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies as unsourced. I hope you don't mind if I ask a couple of questions, because I'm genuinely curious to understand your thinking here. Firstly, which part of WP:MINREF do you believe applies to the contents of that table? And secondly, do you intend to remove the table if it remains unsourced for a certain length of time? Do you believe that removing the table will improve the article? Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  WP:MINREF applies to what must have an inline citation, it doesn't mean that other content doesn't have to be sourced. The entire purpose of WP:V is that all content must be sourced. Content challenged must have an inline citation, given the nature of awards I don't see them as non-contentious content and have challenged it. Having unsourced contentious content harms the project. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  WP:MINREF applies to what must have an inline citation, it doesn't mean that other content doesn't have to be sourced. Actually, MINREF says a little further down: "Technically, if an article contains none of these four types of material, then it is not required by any policy to name any sources at all, either as inline citations or as general references." I'm not aware of any part of WP:V that says all content must be sourced. Could you point me to the particular passage you're thinking of? Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Technically is carry a lot of weight in that sentence, and either way challenged content mus be sourced per WP:BURDEN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  challenged content must be sourced per WP:BURDEN Yes, but the content in that section hadn't been challenged until you added that tag. A valid challenge must have a policy-based reason behind it. Again, per WP:BURDEN, "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable." Do you have reason to believe that it may not be possible to find sources for that awards table? Have you attempted to verify any of it yourself? Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  As I've stated repeatedly I don't believe awards are non-contentious content, which is a valid challenge. If you wish to keep the content WP:PROVEIT The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  The RFC tag has been removed but no-one has yet cleared the article of the WP:BLP tag filed by the deleting editor User:Koavf (who hasn't appeared so far in this discussion to defend it), under which deletion is mandatory. Likewise his WP:OR tag is still up in the air. Chrisdevelop (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  What tag? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  RFC has been removed by User: Sojourner in the earth. Perhaps I should have said 'flag'. You cited (flagged?) WP:BLP, for which deletion without discussion is mandatory. Are you still contending that I added "claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations"? Likewise your WP:OR flag is still sitting there. Chrisdevelop (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  What flag, do you mean the summaries in the article history? Whichever the question is moot, as the table is now sourced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  The deleting editor adduced three reasons for deleting the table (WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP), only one of which has been addressed. Chrisdevelop (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  But the question is moot as the table is sourced. I don't feel it was a BLP or OR issue, but will discussion of that bring any further benefit. As an aside if it was a BLP issue then immediate deletion would be required, but I feel that editors need to be really certain it is a BLP issue before using that exception. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sources was only one of the reasons cited for deletion, and no-one has so far agreed that sources was a legitimate justification for summary deletion without discussion. Be that as it may, BLP is a justifiable reason for summary deletion without discussion, so unless the deleting editor withdraws that, then the Awards table should still be deleted. Chrisdevelop (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Per the mediator If citations are added to the table, this RFC can be closed as overtaken by events and you'll note I voted keep above. Even if the RFC was left open I doubt there would have been an agreement that this was a BLP issue. It can't be one now as the only possible justification for it being so was that the content was "potentially" wrong, which sources now show not to be the case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I have no clue what flags you are talking about. Yes, it is still true that you reinserted claims about living persons with no source. Per WP:BLP, you cannot do this and per WP:V, you take responsibility for these claims, even if they were initially inserted by someone else. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Your question: “Why are you adding claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations?” What awards did I claim living persons lost? This has been going on for days, and you have never addressed this point. Moreover there was nothing defamatory or contentious about people merely being named as awards recipients to justify deletion without discussion of the Awards table under WP:BLP, and no-one so far in this RFC has agreed there was. Are you going to delete anew the Awards table? I reinstated the table and at the same time filed the dispute, because deletion without discussion was not the correct course of action for WP:V - {{citations needed}} should have been used. Chrisdevelop (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  All the claims that were in the table you take responsibility for by re-adding them. You made all of the claims in that table and they were unsourced. Look at the table. The fact that you are even asking "Are you going to delete anew the Awards table?" is mind-boggling to me: why would I delete sourced information? "deletion without discussion was not the correct course of action for WP:V - {{citations needed}} should have been used": wrong, removing unsourced information is correct, particularly in articles about living persons. Nowhere in WP:V does it say that {{citations needed}} is required: this is just you making up stuff. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I repeat, no-one in this RFC has so far agreed that your deletion without discussion of the Awards table was the correct course of action for WP:V, and no-one has so far concurred with WP:BLP. And you still haven't backed up your assertion I added "claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations.” By removing the table, you effectively made certain that no citations would ever appear, but for my alertness in noticing the table had vanished. Who can add inline citations to a table that isn't even there? And why didn't you delete AACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies and all the other directory tables it links to that have no inline citations? Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  "And you still haven't backed up your assertion I added "claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations.”" I don't need to: you added claims about living persons without citations. I don't know why you're acting like you don't understand. You added unsourced information about living persons to an article. This is not confusing. "By removing the table, you effectively made certain that no citations would ever appear" Oh come on: the article has watchers and anyone can add it at any time. As you yourself pointed out, it was added by someone with no sources years ago. "but for my alertness in noticing the table had vanished." That would have been a good thing! "And why didn't you delete AACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies and all the other directory tables it links to that have no inline citations?" There are only 24 hours in a day. If I could remove all unsourced rumor, hoax, lie, nonsense, etc. from Wikipedia I would. Instead, there are users who keep on adding unsourced claims and defending it. It makes me sad that after all this time, you still have not read WP:V: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  What awards did I claim Living Persons lost? And how long would it have taken you to delete AACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies I pointed out to you repeatedly to highlight your selective inconsistency? That's a 24 second job, not a 24 hour task. Of course I have read WP:V, which states, "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step", so your "sadness" is crocodile tears, so far as I am concerned. I have also read WP:WHEN#Challenging another user's edits - "Any editor has the right to challenge unsourced material by opening a discussion on the talk page or by tagging it", WP:WHEN#When a source is needed and WP:WHEN#When a source or citation may not be needed. Deletion without discussion of unsourced material is clearly not the first and only course of action, when citations can be called for as an interim step. This view is shared by most other contributors to this RFC, and no-one agrees with the WP:BLP claim. Why not argue with them? The table is restored, so I am satisfied. You are repeating yourself, and so am I, so I suspect this thread will soon become an echo chamber, if it hasn't already. Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  "What awards did I claim Living Persons lost?" Look at the table. I'm not going around with you on this over and over again. You don't even know what claims you inserted into the article. "Deletion without discussion of unsourced material is clearly not the first and only course of action" I never said it was the only one. "when citations can be called for as an interim step" Others can do that: I don't. I see unsourced information, I remove it. "Why not argue with them?" Why would I? Talking with you is already a waste of time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  More straw man. I never said you said deletion was the only course of action; I didn’t need to. You have explicitly stated deletion is your first option: “I see unsourced information, I remove it”. You deleted a table you could have simply flagged {{citation needed}} under WP:V and WP:WHEN so others could provide sources - which you also could easily have done yourself, by the way, and not made it someone else's problem. And you still haven’t told us which Living People in the table “lost awards”. Of course I “looked at the table”. Everyone has. Two million people over the last 7 years have looked at this table. The table entries say either “won” or “nominated”. There is no “lost” entry I can see anywhere. If you won’t point out the entry, perhaps someone else can enlighten me. By dint of "Why would I [talk to others]? Talking with you is already a waste of time," you suggest talking with others in this RFC will be a “waste of time” yet you agreed to this RFC. You don’t appear willing to abide by consensus in a civil manner. Chrisdevelop (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Any others could provide sources any time they want. It's not my job to prove your claims: it's yours. And you chose to revert and not provide inline citations, even tho you know it's your responsibility. Why did you do this? "You suggest talking with others in this RFC will be a “waste of time” yet you agreed to this RFC." Wrong: talking to you is a waste of time, not others. "You don’t appear willing to abide by consensus in a civil manner." lol no. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  You steadfastly refuse to identify which Living Persons I claimed “lost awards”. Your responses to me are combative, high-handed, patronising, paternalistic and an uncalled for rant that are unworthy of further engagement. I think you just want the last word. If you still want the last word after this, I am going to let you have it. Chrisdevelop (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Why did you do this?" ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I was just about to say the same thing, I looked to remove them but can't see anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  You're going to be busy, and keeping a host of volunteers even busier, if you click on the links in the table you just flagged and flag them too, none of which have inline citations either, since all are directory tables. A reader with the curiosity and the patience to click all the way to the end will find verification. Would it not be better to flag just those likely to be challenged, for which no verification is provided at the ground level, than to clutter these directory tables with a hundred citations apiece? Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Most tables I've seen have a column for referencing (or in the header as appropriate). They are unobtrusive and definitely don't clutter anything. Editors adding content should add sources, it isn't a massive hurdle to get over and means less time is wasted on discussions like this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree {{citations needed}} is the proper way to flag unverified contributions. I disagree the Awards table was unverified, because every line links to an article that provides citations. There is no need to provide an inline citation to every single cell in every single Wikipedia directory table, unless it is likely to be challenged. So, it has been challenged, and now we have citations for every line in the Awards table thanks to the speedy efforts of a volunteer. I disagree longevity and viewer penetration have no impact on whether something is likely to be challenged because on the balance of probability, if the contribution was likely to be challenged, it would have been long ago. That isn't to say it could never happen, but deleting the entire table was effectively declaring none of it was verifiable. There remain the other flags put up by the deleting editor of WP:OR and WP:BLP, the latter mandating deletion without discussion. Until WP:BLP is ruled out, deletion remains justifiable. Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  The articles linked to provide reliable sources. Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Then it takes absolutely no time to move the correct sources into this one, which must be done. Wikipedia is never a reliable source, the factvtne article contains the details now doesn't mean it always will be and WP:UGC is not acceptable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  If it "takes absolutely no time to move the correct sources into this one", are you going to do that, or make it someone else's problem? Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not making it anything, it is your problem. If the details are a matter of public record, and you have even supplied it somewhere, is there any reason why you can't add it elsewhere also? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Why is it my problem? I had nothing to do with the creation of the AACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies directory table. You have stated "it takes absolutely no time to move the correct sources into this one", yet flagged it for others to find them. Is there any reason why you cannot just spend "absolutely no time at all" and do the necessary yourself ? Chrisdevelop (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I apologise you need not worry about it, I thought you must be somehow invested given your comments about it. I'll see if any of the articles editors contact me and discuss it with them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  The Writers Guild of America article makes no mention of Priscilla. The Seattle International Film Festival awards table is unsourced and just links back to Priscilla. Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy is unsourced and just links back to Priscilla. I stopped checking at that point; clearly relying on another Wikipedia article to provide a verifiable source isn't adequate. Schazjmd (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I edited the citation for WGA (which has now been reverted because the title actually was there after all, mea culpa), and added two for the Seattle page, but as of now, they're currently the only two citations in the entire table. Golden Globe drills down through several tables, leading to Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy where Terence Stamp appears, and if you click down, you will find I added a citation from the official Golden Globes website attesting to his nominations and wins. Again, not an inline citation anywhere else in sight. Who is going to provide hundreds of 'water is wet' citations for these directory table entries when they are a matter of public record? Chrisdevelop (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I like the way that upto 1956 Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy is referenced, but then it just stops. I'll add {{more citations needed}}, and leave a message on the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of references from Response and Reaction sections

@2405:4803:C6B9:1300:FD0B:2967:3772:5A67 Why did you remove citations? Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)