Talk:The Ritual (2017 film)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: British This article is supported by the British cinema task force. Horror Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sweden Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

So far as I can see the article at https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/12/the-ritual-review-rafe-spall-brit-horror does not list an Eve Stake as a screen writer or in any other capacity. Unless some reliable, source does list Ms. Stake as a screen writer for this film, she cannot be included in the article. As the person wanting to include this name, IP editor, the

@

hoaxing vandalism, since it was obvious at that point that someone is trying to conceal a deliberately false addition by adding a fake citation to the article. I am very attentive to what stands behind added information and never revert something when in doubt. I take into consideration every factor I can in order to understand the editor's intent. Comments like this really discourage me, as if I did not know what edit warring is and why it is not constructive at all. Thank you. Juliette Han (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Juliette Han, the policy section Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions lists seven cases in which repeated reversion is not edit warring. This does not fit any of them, no matter how polite your message to the other user or how carefully you checked the source. Adding unsourced or miss-sourced info to a non-BLP page is not on the exemption list. When your message plus 2 reverts did not induce the other editor to stop adding in the improperly sourced (effectively unsourced) statement, you should have stopped reverting and instead made a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. That way it is clear who is and who is not warring. I had no way of knowing how experienced or knowledgeable you were, so I left a rather generic message, with a link to the relevant policy page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

hoax. I also think that 'Both of you please stop' wording may hurt editors if they actually did not intend to start anything bad. Thank you. Juliette Han (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with Juliette Han that this was vandalism and is exempted from

talk) 20:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

In the current description of the film, it stays that the bastard child's name is "Moder." In the film, the young woman never states the God's name, referring to it as something that "shall not be named." 2603:6010:7FF0:7000:813F:1184:9A91:4D25 (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]