This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Death of a Nation (2018 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Regarding the "See also" section, an IP editor wants to include historian's fallacy as seen here, and I find it too tangential to be included here. None of the sources about the film talk about this, but the other topics—fascism, political party histories, and Southern strategy—are touched upon in the film or sources about the film. (I would also drop political spectrum as similarly too tangential.) What do other editors think? Pinging those who have edited this article: 205.155.236.91, TropicAces, DirkDouse, Etzedek24, Evope, Neateditor123. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Since Galobtter started making changes to the lead section's second paragraph that had a New York Times quote, it appears that they and subsequent editors cannot decide on the appropriate wording. If this is going to continue to happen, especially without any discussion, then we need to stick with the direct quote until we have a talk-page consensus on how to paraphrase it. Please note that some of the edits are technically synthesis, where the New York Times does not mention liberalism and fascism, and the Broich source does not mention the "falsehoods and misrepresentations". These were combined "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". These should be stated separately. Avoid this synthesis, which is against the NOR policy. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 11:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Also pinging Dimadick, Etzedek24, TropicAces. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 11:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Historians and film critics criticized the film for its falsehoods and misrepresentationsseems reasonable enough I suppose, thanks for that suggestion, (I've inserted "film"to be more specific) and since there are only so many ways to say that, I don't think there are any issues with the phrase "falsehoods and misrepresentations". Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I would be fine with following the historians-and-film-critics sentence with brief (one or two sentences?) summaries of the historians quoted in the "Historical accuracy" section, such as saying that historian Broich said the film committed a category error, etc. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Erik: I personally think the "Conservative commentary" section should be put under the "Critical reception" section as those reviews, though from conservative magazines/websites, still count as critic reviews, and thus should be put under that larger section so somebody can see they're related. In the meantime, though, I will at least put the two sections right next to (though not under) each other so they don't look awkwardly placed.-- Neateditor123 ( talk) 20:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
If conservative commentary does not count as film criticism, then would it not be the case that film critics views of the movie based on their political positions should not count as film criticism? Additionally, Paxton's comments sound like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Athanasius
Volunteer Marek attempted to remove all labels of this film as a documentary as seen here. I reverted it on the grounds that it has been called a documentary by all reliable sources. Galobtter thanked me for my edit, which I assume is an endorsement to keep the labels as they are. This does not mean the document's content and framing should be considered accurate. Documentaries have a long history of being judged as objective or subjective, and political topics in the mix are no exception. "Documentary" by itself is a neutral term for this film's genre, like we have "Historical accuracy" in this section intended to be neutral (despite the content discussing inaccuracies). We can instead discuss expanding the lead section to summarize the article body more fully in regard to critics' and historians' contentions. This would be more in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
IP editors are trying to add a political descriptor to Adam Tooze beyond that of him being historian. The first IP editor, 216.116.0.48, also tried to change "Film critics" to say "Liberal film critics". The second IP editor had these POV edits here and here. While there is a basis to the description as seen here, it is being weaponized by POV pushers to try to discredit his commentary as a historian. One of them also tried to edit Adam Tooze itself. Not sure how political descriptors should work in historians' articles, but the POV intent is obvious enough. For this film article, if there are historians commenting in any other way about the film's portrayal of the welfare program similarity, they can be cited too. Pinging Galobtter as another involved editor. Detailing the situation here in case it persists. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Three publications called this film one of the worst of 2018. They are mentioned in "Film critics" at the end of the first paragraph with the citations bundled together. I've also put a summary sentence (not naming the publications) in the lead section, complete with a reference tag. If other editors think it should be presented differently, it can be discussed here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The title appears to be a clear allusion to the 1915 film, and I was wondering why that is not mentioned on the page. It's pretty easy to find sources for it: example. Would any object to including this information? Wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 19:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
AmYisroelChai sought to blank the "Title" section. Upon further research, I found that this has D'Souza talking about the title. We can expand the section with this content. Pinging Wallyfromdilbert. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Dinesh says its an ironic allusion I don't see why that is not what the section says, if we don't say it that way it implies that it alludes to it as being in favor of birth of a nation when that is clearly not true עם ישראל חי ( talk) 17:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
This is the film critic in question I bolded where i think the question should go עם ישראל חי ( talk) 21:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Bill Goodykoontz, reviewing for The Arizona Republic, described the documentary as "messy, unintentionally hilarious". Goodykoontz said he gave D'Souza's 2016: Obama's America "a somewhat positive review" based on craft and despite "live-action recreations that are laughably inept" and a lack of narrative flow. He said, "D'Souza does some of what he did in Hillary's America, taking established facts... and pretending like they are some sort of secret that he alone has uncovered. He addresses some of the counterarguments to his positions... But he's not putting his claims together in any form that makes sense." He also questioned making a connection to the "hugely influential yet horribly racist film" The Birth of a Nation. [1]
References
The result of the move request was: Moved both ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time? →
Death of a Nation (film) – Per
WP:COMMONNAME (it appears without the subtitle on its IMDB, on Rotten Tomatoes and in most other sources), which implies that "Can We Save America a Second Time?" may be a mere tagline.
Tom Danson (
talk) 19:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. –
Ammarpad (
talk)
08:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
An "Accolades" section was added before, based on this film having several nominations for the Golden Raspberry Awards. There are no other nominations I could find, and considering that the nominations are only under one organizational category and are booby prizes, I converted this section from being a table to prose. I did this because it allows us to write about these booby-prize nominations with fuller context. I know that in the past, in individual articles, the credibility of the Razzies have been questioned. I think it has usually gone into a table when other awards and nominations have existed, but here, a prose approach is best, especially in this situation where Trump gets nominated as "Worst Actor" based on clips of him in documentaries, and with his so-called "Pettiness" to make up "Worst Screen Duo". Editors are welcome to comment about this. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree with CharlesShirley's assessement of WP:CIRCULAR in this case (as you offered, you were reproducing a term that editors sought fit to include in the article's page, we were not literally citing a Wikipedia page). I'm sympathetic to your thoughts that we just may need to find an alternative to the phrase "booby prize". Parody sounds good, I thought maybe describing them as "satirical awards" would flow better, but I'm not sure. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 17:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Death of a Nation was nominated for four Golden Raspberry Awards — annual parody awards also known as the "Razzies" — and won two."? Also could remove the subsequent Deadline quote as extraneous. – Wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 17:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
There were recent changes to the article that did the following:
I reverted these edits here as unnecessary and inappropriate and against policy and guideline. Other editors are welcome to comment. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I just also want to chime in on some of these notes -- As above, I don't agree with the categorization as "alt-right", it seems like JzG is providing undue weight to the Hollywood Reporter article, which seems to be the only RS that is calling the film itself alt-right. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 04:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
JzG, can we discuss the broader implications of what you're pushing for? The general question is, when does a documentary stop being a documentary? Do none of D'Souza's films deserve the "documentary" label? Do none of Michael Moore's films deserve it? Would you treat Fahrenheit 9/11 the same way or not? Documentaries in general have not been impartial. The use of "documentary" here is part of a straightforward basic description of the film, and the complexities should be (and have been) explored throughout the lead section. We have so many historical dramas and biopics that are problematic in themselves, yet they will still be identified as such and then picked apart. The labels are not votes on authenticity. Death of a Nation has been called a "documentary" by Variety, The Guardian, IndieWire, The Hollywood Reporter, etc. even as they pick apart the film. It is completely unnecessary to front-load and build in all the complexities as if the reader won't get past the first sentence at all. One thing I've considered in the past is to have a political documentary film article that can get into how documentaries have been politicized, and it would presumably reflect the greater subjectivity and agenda-driving involved. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Editor JzG removed sourced content from the lead section's opening sentence as seen here that puts the film in the political documentary genre. Now, this does not mean it is not propagandistic. This implies that to be a political documentary, it must be objective or accurate. We know that's not true. We would also not label biographical films as such if we insisted on that kind of criteria. The film's falsehoods are clearly outlined in the lead section, making it indisputable to any reader that there are problems with the film. As I said in the previous thread, "Death of a Nation has been called a "documentary" by Variety, The Guardian, IndieWire, The Hollywood Reporter, etc. even as they pick apart the film." Pinging editors involved on this talk page: Etzedek24, DirkDouse, Neateditor123, Wallyfromdilbert. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Pincrete removed Category:American propaganda films as seen here treating it as a parent category of Category:Films directed by Dinesh D'Souza. I reverted as seen here, saying, "Not appropriate; there are numerous 'directed by' categories, so there is no obvious propaganda-related category connection without this." Pincrete responded on my talk page, but the discussion should happen here, so cross-posting their response:
"Hi, regarding this edit. I realise that ordinarily there are many 'directed by', 'written by' etc, categories, in addition to 'genre' categories - but in this instance "Films directed by Dinesh D'Souza" is actually a sub-category of "American propaganda films", ie it has effectively been decided that everything directed by D'Souza is inherently propaganda! Thus they duplicate in both parent and child cats - it is also an unusual judgement to make in advance about a filmmaker, possibly the 'directed by' category should be moved out of "American propaganda films" - meaning that these films are BOTH directed by D'Souza and American propaganda. Hope this makes sense, I don't dispute that these films are generally seen as propaganda, I was merely trying to tidy pointless duplication of categories." Pincrete ( talk) 15:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I get the notion of this, but it results in nothing propaganda-related in the category section. A reader will not know that it has been "effectively decided" that everything by the director is propaganda. To use a more banal example, why would we remove "Category:American science fiction films" just because a director happens to have directed all American science fiction films? The attempted setup seems like an unnecessary mixing of categorizing films by their type and categorizing films by individuals credited in making them (directing, writing, producing, etc). Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Death of a Nation (2018 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Regarding the "See also" section, an IP editor wants to include historian's fallacy as seen here, and I find it too tangential to be included here. None of the sources about the film talk about this, but the other topics—fascism, political party histories, and Southern strategy—are touched upon in the film or sources about the film. (I would also drop political spectrum as similarly too tangential.) What do other editors think? Pinging those who have edited this article: 205.155.236.91, TropicAces, DirkDouse, Etzedek24, Evope, Neateditor123. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Since Galobtter started making changes to the lead section's second paragraph that had a New York Times quote, it appears that they and subsequent editors cannot decide on the appropriate wording. If this is going to continue to happen, especially without any discussion, then we need to stick with the direct quote until we have a talk-page consensus on how to paraphrase it. Please note that some of the edits are technically synthesis, where the New York Times does not mention liberalism and fascism, and the Broich source does not mention the "falsehoods and misrepresentations". These were combined "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". These should be stated separately. Avoid this synthesis, which is against the NOR policy. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 11:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Also pinging Dimadick, Etzedek24, TropicAces. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 11:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Historians and film critics criticized the film for its falsehoods and misrepresentationsseems reasonable enough I suppose, thanks for that suggestion, (I've inserted "film"to be more specific) and since there are only so many ways to say that, I don't think there are any issues with the phrase "falsehoods and misrepresentations". Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I would be fine with following the historians-and-film-critics sentence with brief (one or two sentences?) summaries of the historians quoted in the "Historical accuracy" section, such as saying that historian Broich said the film committed a category error, etc. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Erik: I personally think the "Conservative commentary" section should be put under the "Critical reception" section as those reviews, though from conservative magazines/websites, still count as critic reviews, and thus should be put under that larger section so somebody can see they're related. In the meantime, though, I will at least put the two sections right next to (though not under) each other so they don't look awkwardly placed.-- Neateditor123 ( talk) 20:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
If conservative commentary does not count as film criticism, then would it not be the case that film critics views of the movie based on their political positions should not count as film criticism? Additionally, Paxton's comments sound like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Athanasius
Volunteer Marek attempted to remove all labels of this film as a documentary as seen here. I reverted it on the grounds that it has been called a documentary by all reliable sources. Galobtter thanked me for my edit, which I assume is an endorsement to keep the labels as they are. This does not mean the document's content and framing should be considered accurate. Documentaries have a long history of being judged as objective or subjective, and political topics in the mix are no exception. "Documentary" by itself is a neutral term for this film's genre, like we have "Historical accuracy" in this section intended to be neutral (despite the content discussing inaccuracies). We can instead discuss expanding the lead section to summarize the article body more fully in regard to critics' and historians' contentions. This would be more in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
IP editors are trying to add a political descriptor to Adam Tooze beyond that of him being historian. The first IP editor, 216.116.0.48, also tried to change "Film critics" to say "Liberal film critics". The second IP editor had these POV edits here and here. While there is a basis to the description as seen here, it is being weaponized by POV pushers to try to discredit his commentary as a historian. One of them also tried to edit Adam Tooze itself. Not sure how political descriptors should work in historians' articles, but the POV intent is obvious enough. For this film article, if there are historians commenting in any other way about the film's portrayal of the welfare program similarity, they can be cited too. Pinging Galobtter as another involved editor. Detailing the situation here in case it persists. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Three publications called this film one of the worst of 2018. They are mentioned in "Film critics" at the end of the first paragraph with the citations bundled together. I've also put a summary sentence (not naming the publications) in the lead section, complete with a reference tag. If other editors think it should be presented differently, it can be discussed here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The title appears to be a clear allusion to the 1915 film, and I was wondering why that is not mentioned on the page. It's pretty easy to find sources for it: example. Would any object to including this information? Wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 19:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
AmYisroelChai sought to blank the "Title" section. Upon further research, I found that this has D'Souza talking about the title. We can expand the section with this content. Pinging Wallyfromdilbert. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Dinesh says its an ironic allusion I don't see why that is not what the section says, if we don't say it that way it implies that it alludes to it as being in favor of birth of a nation when that is clearly not true עם ישראל חי ( talk) 17:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
This is the film critic in question I bolded where i think the question should go עם ישראל חי ( talk) 21:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Bill Goodykoontz, reviewing for The Arizona Republic, described the documentary as "messy, unintentionally hilarious". Goodykoontz said he gave D'Souza's 2016: Obama's America "a somewhat positive review" based on craft and despite "live-action recreations that are laughably inept" and a lack of narrative flow. He said, "D'Souza does some of what he did in Hillary's America, taking established facts... and pretending like they are some sort of secret that he alone has uncovered. He addresses some of the counterarguments to his positions... But he's not putting his claims together in any form that makes sense." He also questioned making a connection to the "hugely influential yet horribly racist film" The Birth of a Nation. [1]
References
The result of the move request was: Moved both ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time? →
Death of a Nation (film) – Per
WP:COMMONNAME (it appears without the subtitle on its IMDB, on Rotten Tomatoes and in most other sources), which implies that "Can We Save America a Second Time?" may be a mere tagline.
Tom Danson (
talk) 19:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. –
Ammarpad (
talk)
08:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
An "Accolades" section was added before, based on this film having several nominations for the Golden Raspberry Awards. There are no other nominations I could find, and considering that the nominations are only under one organizational category and are booby prizes, I converted this section from being a table to prose. I did this because it allows us to write about these booby-prize nominations with fuller context. I know that in the past, in individual articles, the credibility of the Razzies have been questioned. I think it has usually gone into a table when other awards and nominations have existed, but here, a prose approach is best, especially in this situation where Trump gets nominated as "Worst Actor" based on clips of him in documentaries, and with his so-called "Pettiness" to make up "Worst Screen Duo". Editors are welcome to comment about this. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree with CharlesShirley's assessement of WP:CIRCULAR in this case (as you offered, you were reproducing a term that editors sought fit to include in the article's page, we were not literally citing a Wikipedia page). I'm sympathetic to your thoughts that we just may need to find an alternative to the phrase "booby prize". Parody sounds good, I thought maybe describing them as "satirical awards" would flow better, but I'm not sure. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 17:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Death of a Nation was nominated for four Golden Raspberry Awards — annual parody awards also known as the "Razzies" — and won two."? Also could remove the subsequent Deadline quote as extraneous. – Wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 17:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
There were recent changes to the article that did the following:
I reverted these edits here as unnecessary and inappropriate and against policy and guideline. Other editors are welcome to comment. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I just also want to chime in on some of these notes -- As above, I don't agree with the categorization as "alt-right", it seems like JzG is providing undue weight to the Hollywood Reporter article, which seems to be the only RS that is calling the film itself alt-right. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 04:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
JzG, can we discuss the broader implications of what you're pushing for? The general question is, when does a documentary stop being a documentary? Do none of D'Souza's films deserve the "documentary" label? Do none of Michael Moore's films deserve it? Would you treat Fahrenheit 9/11 the same way or not? Documentaries in general have not been impartial. The use of "documentary" here is part of a straightforward basic description of the film, and the complexities should be (and have been) explored throughout the lead section. We have so many historical dramas and biopics that are problematic in themselves, yet they will still be identified as such and then picked apart. The labels are not votes on authenticity. Death of a Nation has been called a "documentary" by Variety, The Guardian, IndieWire, The Hollywood Reporter, etc. even as they pick apart the film. It is completely unnecessary to front-load and build in all the complexities as if the reader won't get past the first sentence at all. One thing I've considered in the past is to have a political documentary film article that can get into how documentaries have been politicized, and it would presumably reflect the greater subjectivity and agenda-driving involved. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Editor JzG removed sourced content from the lead section's opening sentence as seen here that puts the film in the political documentary genre. Now, this does not mean it is not propagandistic. This implies that to be a political documentary, it must be objective or accurate. We know that's not true. We would also not label biographical films as such if we insisted on that kind of criteria. The film's falsehoods are clearly outlined in the lead section, making it indisputable to any reader that there are problems with the film. As I said in the previous thread, "Death of a Nation has been called a "documentary" by Variety, The Guardian, IndieWire, The Hollywood Reporter, etc. even as they pick apart the film." Pinging editors involved on this talk page: Etzedek24, DirkDouse, Neateditor123, Wallyfromdilbert. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Pincrete removed Category:American propaganda films as seen here treating it as a parent category of Category:Films directed by Dinesh D'Souza. I reverted as seen here, saying, "Not appropriate; there are numerous 'directed by' categories, so there is no obvious propaganda-related category connection without this." Pincrete responded on my talk page, but the discussion should happen here, so cross-posting their response:
"Hi, regarding this edit. I realise that ordinarily there are many 'directed by', 'written by' etc, categories, in addition to 'genre' categories - but in this instance "Films directed by Dinesh D'Souza" is actually a sub-category of "American propaganda films", ie it has effectively been decided that everything directed by D'Souza is inherently propaganda! Thus they duplicate in both parent and child cats - it is also an unusual judgement to make in advance about a filmmaker, possibly the 'directed by' category should be moved out of "American propaganda films" - meaning that these films are BOTH directed by D'Souza and American propaganda. Hope this makes sense, I don't dispute that these films are generally seen as propaganda, I was merely trying to tidy pointless duplication of categories." Pincrete ( talk) 15:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I get the notion of this, but it results in nothing propaganda-related in the category section. A reader will not know that it has been "effectively decided" that everything by the director is propaganda. To use a more banal example, why would we remove "Category:American science fiction films" just because a director happens to have directed all American science fiction films? The attempted setup seems like an unnecessary mixing of categorizing films by their type and categorizing films by individuals credited in making them (directing, writing, producing, etc). Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)