From RationalWiki



Archives for this talk page: <1> This page is automatically archived by Archiver Archives for this talk page:

Edit warriors [ edit ]

The recent edits regarding the documentary being a puff piece should be hashed out here. The recent cites have been good, I have read the first four provided by Ryulong - they don't say what Ryulong wants them to say, which is hardly surprising as he is a cretin. However, they do have good info that should be integrated into the article. Happy to put my hand up but I am at work so it's not possible ATM. Tielec01 (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

We went and found anything critical of the film that mentions that it omits covering anything negative which is the crux of the sentence. I'm not a cretin for adding that.—Ryulong (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Omitting anything negative and using it to jumpstart the return of this article as a hit piece are two different things. -- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC) How is that one sentence criticizing the film turning the article into a hit piece, Paravant? Is it because it's just slightly negative?—Ryulong (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC) I;m not a fan of slippery slopes Ryulong, but with you, the obvious outcome is apparent: it starts here, it ends with you fighting over turning this into a hit piece because you don't like bronys and think everybody else shouldn't either. -- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Drop the bullshit excuses. It's one sentence out of the whole fucking article and it's criticizing the makers of a single film. That's not a hit piece. Your change that it's just "some bloggers" is disingenuous garbage. http://www.btchflcks.com/2013/09/the-bronies-documentary-is-borderline-propaganda.html http://www.themarysue.com/review-a-brony-tale/ http://g33kingout.com/a-bronys-review-of-bronies-the-extremely-unexpected-adult-fans-of-my-little-pony/ http://www.technologytell.com/entertainment/33875/pro-bronies-new-documentary-on-grown-men-who-really-really-like-my-little-pony/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2446192/reviews http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bronies_the_extremely_unexpected_adult_fans_of_my_little_pony/reviews/?type=user http://letterboxd.com/felixhubble/film/bronies-the-extremely-unexpected-adult-fans-of-my-little-pony/ http://mothra-mei-and-more.tumblr.com/post/113512489925/2015-film-challenge-72-bronies-the-extremely http://shane-movies.blogspot.com/2014/01/bronies-extremely-unexpected-adult-fans.html http://www.criticker.com/film/Bronies_The_Extremely_Unexpected_Adult/ http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/my-little-pony-bronies-documentary-sexism/ http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Brony http://www.poolpartyradio.com/2014/01/ep-143-personal-friendship-information.html http://www.critic.co.nz/features/article/3365/the-mysterious-world--of-bronies http://crustula.com/2014/08/07/good-bad-ugly-review-a-brony-tale/ http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2014/09/10/a-brony-tale-review-cynicism-versus-naivete-in-the-land-of-equ http://www.cinemaretro.com/index.php?/archives/8149-REVIEW-MORGAN-SPURLOCK-PRESENTS-A-BRONY-TALE-IN-THEATERS-JULY-8-AND-ON-DEMAND-JULY-15.html http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/my-little-brony/Content?oid=12946736 All these reviews across multiple websites, including several that have clout in reviewing media, more than anything justify including some criticism that the films are seen as unnecessarily pro-brony (bordering on propaganda) while omitting anything remotely negative about the fandom.—Ryulong (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC) I see you're trying to use SJWiki as a credible source again. And I think we should include criticism, I don't trust you to provide that criticism due to the aforementioned hissy fit you threw last time your "criticism" turned the article into a hit piece due to your personal hate of the brony fandom.-- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Oh no, one out of 14 links is a wiki. And who fucking cares. Elaine made the changes, Tielec asked for sources, I saw it in recent changes and provided them. You came in here to revert me because it's me and this is your sacred cow.—Ryulong (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Not just any wiki, a shitty wiki. Tielec also asked for a better written version, which your sources didn't pan out to.-- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC) My reading of the first four articles is that they do note that there was not much criticism in the documentary; that much is true. On the other hand the general tone of them is very positive (eg. I thought it was good overall, but there are a few elements that I wish had been touched upon more or This is a nice documentary, filled with lots of warmth and affection for a shared passion.) . Why have you decided to cherry pick the one shared criticism they made, even though some of those cites flag it as a minor concern, and ignore all the praise? Tielec01 (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Because the point is that the criticism exists. So the sentence can be written to say the film was wellmade and sheds light on the community, but there's an overwhelming view that it went out of its way to omit criticism of the fandom.—Ryulong (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure that is the consensus, I see the consensus being that the documentary is a positive look at the Brony fandom. Some people say that it would be nice to see a critical look at the fandom, but they seem to acknowledge that that wasn't the purpose of the documentary. If the documentary billed itself as a hard-hitting look at Bronies or as investigative journalism then you might have a point. There is some slight criticism of the documentary, and I think the current sentence sums it up about right (indeed some of the links you provided almost paraphrased our summary). 07:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC) The sentence can at least be changed to state that it's a common criticism across the board. And maybe dropping the Trekkie line.—Ryulong (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC) It's only across the board if we define that as "of the sources I picked because they agreed with me"-- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 07:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC) There are sources that don't mention the criticism but the point here is to provide citations for the criticism.—Ryulong (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC) I find Tielecs arguement more persuasive than yours. -- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 07:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Yes. "Don't change anything at all" would be the way you want it to go.—Ryulong (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Documentary criticism [ edit ]

Enough's enough, Paravant. There are a dozen citations criticizing the film. Just because you don't like the criticism doesn't make that sentence a hitpiece. Drop this bullshit grudge against me and actually let the edit stand.—Ryulong (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

And once again Paravant you're abusing the sysop AND moderator tools just so you can have YOUR way in an edit war with me. Why won't you allow ANY criticism of the MLP fandom to stand? Why are you ignoring the dozen links Kitsunelaine and I provided that point out the criticisms of this one film? Is it because it isn't Roger Fucking Ebert?—Ryulong (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

i can find dozens of citations supporting the film, numbers mean nothing. -- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC) But the point is that it's criticism of the film.—Ryulong (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Also, pot, meet kettle. -- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC) At least I never abused the tools over something as fucking trivial as cartoon horses.—Ryulong (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC) No, you just abused them over something as trivial as "I didn't like what you said so I revdelled it and got mad when that got undone"-- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC) I'm just sitting here eating popcorn, noting that Ryu and Kitsunelaine are precisely the tag team I believed them to be. [Bowing back out of here.]---Mona- (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC) No one fucking asked you, Bubbe.—Ryulong (talk) And Paravant, when something includes completely falsified allegations of pedophilia then that's something that requires revdel regardless of any shitrag tabloid's legal department's actions.—Ryulong (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC) I meant more all those other ones that we had to undo.-- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC) You mean the ones where I was trying to prevent childish harassment that was happening through reverts and such? But no. No criticism of a documentary on Bronies allowed on RationalWiki.—Ryulong (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Continue to play the victim who has done no wrong Ryu. -- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 07:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Yeah I totally made up every single edit that I revdelled that was restored in a single night.—Ryulong (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC) It is extraordinarily evident he is doing this because of a grudge against you, Ryulong. He only ever jumped in when you edited the page. There is nothing wrong with the edit that I was trying to make. Tielec undid the edit to ask for cites, which I was in the middle of looking to provide, but the SECOND you undid the undo, he jumped in to abuse the shit out of his mod powers. My edit remained on the site for over 20 minutes before Tielec undid it, and Paravant was active through this, apparently having no justification to jump here until he saw YOUR name on the edit history in the recent changes section. The fact of the matter is that Paravant DID NOT CARE about my edit until you put it back in with the cites that Tielec was asking for. This is blatant abusal, and there is no way Paravant can talk his way out of that being the case. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC) The more you make this a story of me not liking Ryulong due to a grudge, the less true it becomes. And its more that I didn't notice your edit, I don't see all things. -- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Bull. Fucking. Shit. The moment you saw Ryu editing the page you stepped in to stop him. You didn't even bother to provide a fucking reason. You didn't look. You just saw "Ryulong" and shat your pants. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Definitely ovne of the more... curious.... edit wars on RW. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC) I actually did look, I always do, but please ascribe actions you clearly know more than myself. -- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC) The fact of the matter is. You undid MY edit for Ryulong's crime of providing the cites someone was asking for. What the fuck kind of justification do you have for that? - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"dozen citations criticizing the film" doesn't mean it's right I can find "dozens of citations" that the earth is 6000 years old, too ;-) Remember, this is not Wikipedia where we have to offer a neutral description in the likes of "Some people have criticized the films because ...". Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion 2 [ edit ]

So, that was fun. Whose ready to discuss this then? I'll just repeat previous statements that the sources do not justify making the entire sentence negative. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 08:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you feel about that version?-- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 08:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC) From an editorial standpoint, Kitsunelaine's edits seem reasonable enough. Why don't you feel that those sources don't justify making a sentence negative? Gooniepunk (talk) 08:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC) As discussed above, it's cherry picking one specific criticism out of them. Is there a flaw in my wording, which includes the best of both worlds: It points out why they don't like it, but mentions that otherwise they found it an ok movie, instead of only pointing out that it was bad, which gives a wrong impression of the sources. -- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 08:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Just looking in because "recent changes" went wild... (And I think MLP:FIM is an interesting phenomena from a cultural and social standpoint). The edit-warred section seems okay-ish, but I'd change "due to its lack of real negative coverage" to "due to its lack of any coverage of the negative aspects of the fandom" or something like that. Dendlai (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC) If the problem is cherry picking, I can start to write a thoroughly detailed critical analysis of the film to include on the article. (Read: Rewrite common criticisms and examples of the film where it's being not completely honest). But the question remains, is there even a way for me to do that in which wouldn't be countered with "But what about the positive aspects?" as it stands, the film isn't... Very good, and my interpretation of it is that it was made with a very specific purpose-- to show people how being a brony is totally awesome and convince them, the only method of doing so being to downplay and ignore the bad things about the fandom. If people want to include praise alongside the criticism, I feel like in order for that to be written into an article, there needs to be a pre-agreed method of implementing it in such a way that people feel like it's an accurate representation of the film, as opposed to the oppositions just being that it's "too critical" of it. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC) The whole article isn't worth the server space, don't further waste your time writing up a detailed critique of the documentary. Firstly it is of fuck-all relevance to the wiki, secondly it won't be as compelling as you think it will be because, by definition it will be a collection of your opinions, thirdly it's of fuck-all relevance to the wiki, fourthly it's an inconsequential point in an already inconsequential article, fifthly it's of fuck-all relevance to the wiki, sixthly there's no reason why a documentary into Brony culture must be critical, seventhly it's of fuck-all... well you get it. Tielec01 (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC) On this, we agree. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 22:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Is this ED |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ I... I AM A MONSTER... COACH 12:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Also Tielec's edit is gold do not fuck it up |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ That's just, like, your opinion, man. 12:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I figure I will take the initiative here to start this discussion over Arisboch's assertions and reckless undoing.

Explaining a criticism previously alluded to in a single paragraph does not a hitpiece make. Indeed, condemning said criticism without explaining it makes it a hitpiece against those critics. I have not removed anything that paints bronies in a positive light. Only added, and explained, things to improve pre-existing material.

This article, if it is to remain, must not seek to exclude any criticism of the fandom. If you have a problem with my edits, discuss them here instead of blanket undoing them for the sake of a petty edit war. You will have to convince me that the criticism does not need explaining.

If you have a problem with the substance of what I wrote, and not the grammar (Which to be fair, may be poor. What I wrote might need restructuring.), discuss it here instead of taking it out on me with undo's. I understand that this is a sensitive topic for some of you, but the article exists not just to serve you, but others who stumble upon it. As such I feel it is necessary to not ignore the critics and criticism, even if you feel you must put emphasis on the good things bronies have done and are capable of.

An addendum: It would be a disservice to those critics to water the arguments down with things that neuter their words in favour of bronydom. I believe I have worded my additions in such a way that heavily implies "Not all bronies", in a manner that simply says "This is what these people think and why". You are going to have to convince me that this is not an appropriate angle to tackle criticism of the fandom from, because otherwise, it is far, far too unbalanced towards defensive side. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ponies vs. atheism - Ponies win [ edit ]

Conservapedia's pony page is a lot funnier than our pony page ... "The brutal proponent of atheism Joseph Stalin was not a big fan of ponies" ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not missional [ edit ]

Since an AFD for this article was already attempted I will state why I oppose this article. 1) We aren't TVTropes so I see no reason for why we need to analyze this show. 2) Unlike heavy metal, punk, or hip-hop it isn't a genre and unlike video games it isn't a type of media. 3) If there is a concern for prejudice against bronies then that is what this article should concentrate on or it should discuss it on a new article on opposition to anything "feminine".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 22:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Trolls [ edit ]

How do the MLPs interact with [troll dolls]? Anna Livia (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This pretty head-on to my understanding [ edit ]

Granted I avoid the shitter side of the fandom ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) {{subst:ShiningSwordofThoughts|}}