Talk:Bloodsport (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

There is a book with the same title by James B. Stewart, published in 1995, it seems. see Special:Whatlinkshere/Blood Sport - though I don't know enough about either of them to be able to do anything. Tomos 07:51, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Copyvio revert war 2 Salt? 3 this film 4 Categorisation

[edit] Copyvio revert war

I received this via e-mail, but I'd like to take the discussion back to Wikipedia:

Tom,

I realize that you believe you're doing a service by supposedly
moderating the Bloodsport entry on Wikipedia, but it's extremely
frustrating to all us true fans who have to re-submit the entry every
time you take it down. I have absolutely no problem with staying
within Wikipedia guidelines (whatever those are), but instead of
removing our entry with a ridiculous claim like "vandalism", make a
helpful comment and change little details that you believe to be
wrong. The entry that you've submitted is simply terrible. Here is an
excerpt from your synopsis of the movie:

"Frank, who is in the army, enters and the army sends out some men to
get him. He resists them."

What does that mean? That poor grammar and complete lack of any
knowledge of the movie is simply unexcusable. I am going to warn you
now. If you continue to remove our post in a blatant abuse of the
Wikipedia system, I will report you to the proper authorities. You are
the true vandal, and I have an army of 50 fans waiting to replace our
entry when you delete it. You are going to lose...

The reason for my reversions is very simple: Wikipedia cannot under any circumstances use copyrighted text in articles without permission. See Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. In this case, the summary that you keep pasting is from the back of the DVD, and we simply cannot use it, whether it is better or worse than the existing summary.

To respond to your other comments: (1) I didn't write the summary that's there, and I agree it could be improved. (2) My only revert marked "vandalism" is this one, which was clearly vandalism. My other reverts did indeed have comments explaining them, and I even placed an explanation on the talk page of the user that first posted it. (3) If you'd like to "report me" to the "authorities", the right place to do that is at WP:RFC, but I understand the Wikipedia policies well, and can guarantee that they will agree with me, because the legal copyright issues are not negotiable.

Anyway, I like this movie too, and I appreciate your dedication to improving the article. I'd like to observe that, instead of organizing your army of 50 fans to continue this dispute, you could better spend your time improving the article (without copying text) to the point that it becomes a great Wikipedia article. Getting started would certainly take less time than you've already spent sending this e-mail and reading my response. — brighterorange (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It is likely that such material is available to us under the fair use doctrine. However, it is unlikely that we can simply dump the whole of the back of the DVD case into an article; we must only use the minimum required for our purposes. Since we could easily (and have previously) written our own version, we probably cannot simply keep a carbon-copy of the DVD case which the article presently is. It needs to be edited up or down from either this version or the previous. The previous was quite poor, the current probably not legal usage. So, I'm going to leave the article as it is, and give, say 24 hours for the editing to take place. After that time, I'm going to revert to the non-copyrighted version.

Those using unpleasant edit-summaries and blindly reverting should stop doing so, and discuss.

So can someone present a draft on this talk page, and see if others agree/object? -Splash^talk 17:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Further to the above, note also that Wikipedia does not like the use of promotional material, since it must inherently violate our core neutral point-of-view principles. The encyclopedia reports on things, rather than evaluating or promotion them. That alone is a good reason to seriously edit the current form of the article. -Splash^talk 17:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• I reverted it anyway. The puffery from the DVD label is embarassing. "Takes you where few have ever gone" -- spare me. (I very much like the film, for what it's worth; I've seen it a half dozen times.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Eh, please forgive me, but after looking through the history, I've decided to protect the article for a while. The repeated copyvio insertion is just silly, and the blanking doesn't look like it's abating any, (and such charming edit summaries: "Brighterorange is a poopoo head", not at all childish). Func( t, c, @, ) 02:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Salt?

Salt clearly isn't used to blind Dux in the last scene. It's some form of pill which his opponent crushes up and throws at him.

And I doubt its cocaine...

[edit] this film

is the best ever!!! --Killergon2 19:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorisation

This is largely directed to the editor who keeps re-adding a deleted category. A sub-cat has been created for Bloodsport films to collect the whole series in one place. As with other series, they do not appear in their own genre individually, they appear collectively (for an example, check out The Empire Strikes Back, it's not in Science fiction films as Star Wars episodes is a sub-cat). If you look at Category:Bloodsport films you will see at the bottom that it is part of Category:Martial arts films. If you look at the Martial arts category, at the top it shows that Bloodport is a sub-cat within Martial arts. Please do not re-add the removed cat to this article, it is in effect double listing it. Mallanox 08:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the mentality presented here, and subsequently also the reasoning behind your continued removals of a relevant category, can be objected to for the following reasons; 1) It does not befit an encyclopedia, which - being a source of information - seeks to collect all details which are directly relevant to the subject being covered, and in a manner that is both brief and to the point. The adding of the "Martial arts" category next to the "Bloodsport" category is thus warranted, as it enriches the sum of information the article presents to its readers. 2) The argument that it is supposedly double listing is dubious. Bloodsport movies may be martial arts movies, yet not all martial arts movies are Bloodsport movies - thus there is a proper distinction to be made. Correctly pointing out that the Bloodsport movie is part both of a series of movies with a similar theme of their own, as well as a part of the martial arts category at large is not double listing at all, but in fact the addition of relevant information on the subject being covered. In the future, please refrain from ommiting such relevant information from the article. 80.200.6.222 11:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:CG. Articles in sub-cats do not belong in higher level cats. I realise not all martial arts films are Bloodsport films, that is why Bloodsport is a sub-cat of martial arts. As for comments about mentality, please read WP:AGF. Mallanox 17:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A bit of personal interpretation and common sense is warranted here as well I think. There being a policy to prevent the category section from becoming cluttered is both understandable and warranted even for an encyclopedic work. However the situation here calls for a case-by-case evaluation in my opinion. If a rigid adherence to this policy is causing you to seek to reduce the overwhelming number of three (3) categories in an article to two (2) solely on the basis that you seek to prevent 'cluttering', then now is perhaps a good moment to pour some additional thought into your interpretation on the meaning and purpose of that rule. 81.240.56.159 08:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the question of being both in a category and a subcategory of that category is mentioned here: Categories#Some_general_guidelines. If it helps your case the policy is that the article should just be in the subcategory. This doesn't appear to be among either of the two exceptions(cases where people wouldn't expect to be required to check a subcat, nor a case where it defines a category of its own). Cheers, i kan reed 11:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is rather sad that as a direct result of Mallanox his apparent inability to make a due case-by-case evaluation, this encyclopedic article is effectively rendered less complete and less accurate because of his actions. I'm not going to make an edit war out of this, as such is beneath me, but the truth remains that the loser of this debate ultimately is the informative quality of this article. And not I. Cheers. 80.200.10.20 17:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)