This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Woman King 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 21 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from The Woman King (film) to The Woman King. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I removed the "Historical accuracy" section here per WP:FILMHIST, "For films based on history or science, analysis should be based on reliable published secondary sources that compare the film with history or with science. If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license." In essence, editors cannot use history books to provide their own analysis of whether or not the work is accurate. However, it is very likely that upon the film's release, there will be historians who provide feedback on its accuracy or lack thereof, and we can reference them then. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Removed a similar section here. It remains to be seen how the film will portray the kingdom's relationship to slavery, and as stated above, if there are issues with historical accuracy, historians and related commentators will respond directly about the film. Editors cannot pluck out a history book and try to indicate a conclusion themselves. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I saw this today that has comments from the filmmakers about their approach. One passage writes, "She said, 'Can you imagine if one day we actually made a movie about this amazing group of female soldiers who caused such an act of resistance that slavery paused for a time?' recalled Schulman, who was then an executive at STX Entertainment. This detail could be used in conjunction with feedback from sources independent of the film once it is released. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to A person in Georgia for adding this for the budget, and it also has this relevant passage about historical accuracy:
Since it is derived from real history, the Woman King story is more complex than a simple hero’s tale — and the accuracy of the film has been a subject of speculation even before its first public screening. In mid-August, The 1619 Project author Nikole Hannah-Jones tweeted, “It will be interesting to see how a movie that seems to glorify the all-female military unit of the Dahomey deals with the fact that this kingdom derived its wealth from capturing Africans for the trans-Atlantic slave trade.” The film does tackle that subject — Davis’ Nanisca objects to her king’s practice of selling war prisoners into slavery, and advocates for a different policy. “When I came aboard, those were some of the first conversations,” Prince-Bythewood says, of the depiction of the slave trade. “But it was, ‘We’re going to tell the truth. We’re not going to shy away from anything.’ But also we’re telling a part of the story which is about overcoming and fighting for what’s right. And I think we got it right.”
Not sure if it is worth starting a "Historical accuracy" section based on these recent items, or better to wait for release and feedback from independent sources?
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Source from History vs. Hollywood to use. It looks like it can cover which characters were real or fictionalized, the background of slavery, the kingdom's relationship with Europe and Oyo, and palm oil production as an alternative to slavery (proposed by the protagonist in the film). It can be used to start off the section. Will look out for more sources. There is some commentary from film critics based on the festival screening, but likely more commentary will be forthcoming from historians and others once it is in theaters. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I started a "Historical accuracy" section. Please share feedback and other sources here (or use in the article body). Use in-text attribution when quoting or when there is speculation (like I did with History vs. Hollywood). Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
This has the following passages that could be cited as part of fuller coverage once the film is publicly released:
Some have been skeptical of how “The Woman King” tackles history. Last month, the 1619 Project author Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote on Twitter that “it will be interesting to see how a movie that seems to glorify the all-female military unit of the Dahomey deals with the fact that this kingdom derived its wealth from capturing Africans for the trans-Atlantic slave trade.”
The Agojie were indeed a brutal and bloodthirsty army that participated in slave raids. “The Woman King,” like most historical epics, takes some artistic license. But the slave trade is a central component to its narrative. Schulman says the 1820s were chosen from the 1600-1904 history of the Dahomey kingdom specifically for the backdrop of conflict with the mightier Oyo empire, along with mounting pressure from European colonizers for captives.
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
A couple of more sources about the film's historical accuracy. There is more information than needed, I think, and it's hard to tell at this tpoint what context is relevant or not. For example, while History vs. Hollywood mentioned the Elephant and Fly political parties, and I initially included that mention, a second look showed no reviews mentioning them, so I removed that mention as not being pertinent enough. Please share other relevant sources here, and we can discuss what subsections to have. We can integrate multiple sources as needed. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a piece by historian Ana Lucia Araujo that should be used here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC) Additional sources:
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Additional sources. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The historical accuracy section as it now stands (Sept. 2023) is thin, bland, and misleading due to omissions. There is a lot of secondary material cited on this talk page that could be -- should be -- used. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:5C2A:A965:7848:31 ( talk) 17:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Per MOS:FIRST, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." We cannot assume that a film's director should be named in the first sentence for every single film, as no policy or guideline supports that. In the context of this film, sharing the premise of the film in the first sentence is the most notable context. MOS:CONTEXTLINK says, "The first sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable." Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Per MOS:FILM#Audience reception, user ratings are not to be included in film articles. See the link for more details about this. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
A person in Georgia, regarding your ongoing expansion of the "Critical reception" section, we should avoid WP:SYNTH sentences like, "Many critics called The Woman King a crowd-pleaser and positively compared it to acclaimed historical epics from previous years." We cannot group four individual critics together and make this synthesized claim. Only sentences with directly attributable trend observations like the Rotten Tomatoes editorials can be used to make broad claims. Same thing with the sentence, "The film's representation of history and culture divided many reviewers," which is WP:WEASEL wording. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the Rotten Tomatoes editorial here, I think we need to use it with care. We need to focus only on trends explicitly defined, and sometimes sources like the editorial will simply list quotes by theme. For the latter, we should not SYNTHesize individual quotes. For this film, the source actually only says that the cast was commended, particularly Davis and Mbedu, and that the action choreography was praised, and that there were issues with the script. I don't think it's appropriate to look at the individual quotes and say that its direction and production design were praised, as RT did not explicitly highlight these. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible source to use for a "Marketing" section, subsection, or paragraph. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Depending on what is actually written upon release, there could be a "Social commentary" section to pool commentary that is not primarily film criticism or historical comparing and contrasting (though these could complement that commentary). For example, The Conversation has here commentary about the growing interest in the women warriors. There could be other angles like tying in with African and African-American representation, how this film fits or does not fit with past historical epics, or the appropriateness of having a film about these warriors who are part of an institution that engaged in slavery. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
References to use. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This movie is more correctly described as /info/en/?search=Historical_fiction and /info/en/?search=Alternate_history. The first sentence; "a 2022 American historical epic film" is wrong. The first sentence should be changed to "a 2022 American historical fiction", "a 2022 American historical fiction film based on an alternate history", or "a 2022 American alternate history film". The gross mischaracterization of the entire objective history of the tribe, it's motivations, it's actions, it's relationship with other parties -- and the women soldiers effectiveness -- mean that this is not "historical epic" film. It is alternate history or historical fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 ( talk) 11:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Why is the Rotten Tomatoes consensus being excluded here? Adding the consensus is common practice for the critical reception section, and it's an inclusion that I for one have certainly always appreciated and found helpful. Wikipedia is the first place I go when looking up a movie's reception, the consensus is a standard aspect of that, and I'm certainly not alone with this. Every (notable) movie receives one critic consensus from Rotten Tomatoes, which is something that is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article on the film, especially when there is an entire section devoted to critical reception.
It might not be the strongest consensus they've ever written, but not including it for that reason feels like a completely subjective decision. Even The Emoji Movie's consensus is included, and that was literally just an emoji. NickH ( talk) 04:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
The king of the Oyo Empire (Oba) is a very notable feature. Everyone was widely talked about in this article linking out to their pages except the Nigerian actor. Why is that? Even the part that listed the casts at the beginning of the content, he wasn't acknowledged there. 105.112.59.253 ( talk) 21:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
This segment minimalizes the movie's portrayal of slavery. It implies one scene is erroneous. Can it be rewritten? 2.27.112.1 ( talk) 23:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Where's the ToC for this longish article? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:5C2A:A965:7848:31 ( talk) 17:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree with the out-of-place insertion of controversy-related content in solely the lead section but am open to the possibility of referencing this content in the article body. Pinging A person in Georgia who worked on the article, about this inclusion. Perhaps a "Social media reactions" subsection under the "Release" section with clear WP:INTEXT attribution about who said what. Or even "Social commentary" for non-review write-ups about the film's portrayal. To put it only in the lead section in highly-condensed form feels pointed. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Merzostin ( talk · contribs) is making numerous problematic edits:
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
One more thing, the wording mixed to positive should not be used, especially when both RT and MC said reviews were positive. Wikipedia Project film has consistently said not to do this. stop equivocating, stop trying to ignore the review aggregators. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48?wprov=srpw1_1#Mixed_to_positive_%2F_Mixed_to_negative -- 109.76.202.116 ( talk) 15:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The restoration of this pointed and shoehorned passage, despite some revisions, was problematic. I've gone ahead and done the following:
Seriously, let's be more cognizant that editors can behave in a RIGHTGREATWRONGS way, which is disruptive editing and violates WP:POV. Wikipedia is supposed to report about disputes in a disinterested way. When in doubt, quote reliable sources directly as they cover a controversy or controversies, or stick closely to what they say. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Woman King 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 21 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from The Woman King (film) to The Woman King. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I removed the "Historical accuracy" section here per WP:FILMHIST, "For films based on history or science, analysis should be based on reliable published secondary sources that compare the film with history or with science. If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license." In essence, editors cannot use history books to provide their own analysis of whether or not the work is accurate. However, it is very likely that upon the film's release, there will be historians who provide feedback on its accuracy or lack thereof, and we can reference them then. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Removed a similar section here. It remains to be seen how the film will portray the kingdom's relationship to slavery, and as stated above, if there are issues with historical accuracy, historians and related commentators will respond directly about the film. Editors cannot pluck out a history book and try to indicate a conclusion themselves. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I saw this today that has comments from the filmmakers about their approach. One passage writes, "She said, 'Can you imagine if one day we actually made a movie about this amazing group of female soldiers who caused such an act of resistance that slavery paused for a time?' recalled Schulman, who was then an executive at STX Entertainment. This detail could be used in conjunction with feedback from sources independent of the film once it is released. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to A person in Georgia for adding this for the budget, and it also has this relevant passage about historical accuracy:
Since it is derived from real history, the Woman King story is more complex than a simple hero’s tale — and the accuracy of the film has been a subject of speculation even before its first public screening. In mid-August, The 1619 Project author Nikole Hannah-Jones tweeted, “It will be interesting to see how a movie that seems to glorify the all-female military unit of the Dahomey deals with the fact that this kingdom derived its wealth from capturing Africans for the trans-Atlantic slave trade.” The film does tackle that subject — Davis’ Nanisca objects to her king’s practice of selling war prisoners into slavery, and advocates for a different policy. “When I came aboard, those were some of the first conversations,” Prince-Bythewood says, of the depiction of the slave trade. “But it was, ‘We’re going to tell the truth. We’re not going to shy away from anything.’ But also we’re telling a part of the story which is about overcoming and fighting for what’s right. And I think we got it right.”
Not sure if it is worth starting a "Historical accuracy" section based on these recent items, or better to wait for release and feedback from independent sources?
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Source from History vs. Hollywood to use. It looks like it can cover which characters were real or fictionalized, the background of slavery, the kingdom's relationship with Europe and Oyo, and palm oil production as an alternative to slavery (proposed by the protagonist in the film). It can be used to start off the section. Will look out for more sources. There is some commentary from film critics based on the festival screening, but likely more commentary will be forthcoming from historians and others once it is in theaters. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I started a "Historical accuracy" section. Please share feedback and other sources here (or use in the article body). Use in-text attribution when quoting or when there is speculation (like I did with History vs. Hollywood). Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
This has the following passages that could be cited as part of fuller coverage once the film is publicly released:
Some have been skeptical of how “The Woman King” tackles history. Last month, the 1619 Project author Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote on Twitter that “it will be interesting to see how a movie that seems to glorify the all-female military unit of the Dahomey deals with the fact that this kingdom derived its wealth from capturing Africans for the trans-Atlantic slave trade.”
The Agojie were indeed a brutal and bloodthirsty army that participated in slave raids. “The Woman King,” like most historical epics, takes some artistic license. But the slave trade is a central component to its narrative. Schulman says the 1820s were chosen from the 1600-1904 history of the Dahomey kingdom specifically for the backdrop of conflict with the mightier Oyo empire, along with mounting pressure from European colonizers for captives.
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
A couple of more sources about the film's historical accuracy. There is more information than needed, I think, and it's hard to tell at this tpoint what context is relevant or not. For example, while History vs. Hollywood mentioned the Elephant and Fly political parties, and I initially included that mention, a second look showed no reviews mentioning them, so I removed that mention as not being pertinent enough. Please share other relevant sources here, and we can discuss what subsections to have. We can integrate multiple sources as needed. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a piece by historian Ana Lucia Araujo that should be used here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC) Additional sources:
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Additional sources. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The historical accuracy section as it now stands (Sept. 2023) is thin, bland, and misleading due to omissions. There is a lot of secondary material cited on this talk page that could be -- should be -- used. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:5C2A:A965:7848:31 ( talk) 17:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Per MOS:FIRST, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." We cannot assume that a film's director should be named in the first sentence for every single film, as no policy or guideline supports that. In the context of this film, sharing the premise of the film in the first sentence is the most notable context. MOS:CONTEXTLINK says, "The first sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable." Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Per MOS:FILM#Audience reception, user ratings are not to be included in film articles. See the link for more details about this. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
A person in Georgia, regarding your ongoing expansion of the "Critical reception" section, we should avoid WP:SYNTH sentences like, "Many critics called The Woman King a crowd-pleaser and positively compared it to acclaimed historical epics from previous years." We cannot group four individual critics together and make this synthesized claim. Only sentences with directly attributable trend observations like the Rotten Tomatoes editorials can be used to make broad claims. Same thing with the sentence, "The film's representation of history and culture divided many reviewers," which is WP:WEASEL wording. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the Rotten Tomatoes editorial here, I think we need to use it with care. We need to focus only on trends explicitly defined, and sometimes sources like the editorial will simply list quotes by theme. For the latter, we should not SYNTHesize individual quotes. For this film, the source actually only says that the cast was commended, particularly Davis and Mbedu, and that the action choreography was praised, and that there were issues with the script. I don't think it's appropriate to look at the individual quotes and say that its direction and production design were praised, as RT did not explicitly highlight these. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible source to use for a "Marketing" section, subsection, or paragraph. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Depending on what is actually written upon release, there could be a "Social commentary" section to pool commentary that is not primarily film criticism or historical comparing and contrasting (though these could complement that commentary). For example, The Conversation has here commentary about the growing interest in the women warriors. There could be other angles like tying in with African and African-American representation, how this film fits or does not fit with past historical epics, or the appropriateness of having a film about these warriors who are part of an institution that engaged in slavery. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
References to use. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This movie is more correctly described as /info/en/?search=Historical_fiction and /info/en/?search=Alternate_history. The first sentence; "a 2022 American historical epic film" is wrong. The first sentence should be changed to "a 2022 American historical fiction", "a 2022 American historical fiction film based on an alternate history", or "a 2022 American alternate history film". The gross mischaracterization of the entire objective history of the tribe, it's motivations, it's actions, it's relationship with other parties -- and the women soldiers effectiveness -- mean that this is not "historical epic" film. It is alternate history or historical fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 ( talk) 11:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Why is the Rotten Tomatoes consensus being excluded here? Adding the consensus is common practice for the critical reception section, and it's an inclusion that I for one have certainly always appreciated and found helpful. Wikipedia is the first place I go when looking up a movie's reception, the consensus is a standard aspect of that, and I'm certainly not alone with this. Every (notable) movie receives one critic consensus from Rotten Tomatoes, which is something that is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article on the film, especially when there is an entire section devoted to critical reception.
It might not be the strongest consensus they've ever written, but not including it for that reason feels like a completely subjective decision. Even The Emoji Movie's consensus is included, and that was literally just an emoji. NickH ( talk) 04:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
The king of the Oyo Empire (Oba) is a very notable feature. Everyone was widely talked about in this article linking out to their pages except the Nigerian actor. Why is that? Even the part that listed the casts at the beginning of the content, he wasn't acknowledged there. 105.112.59.253 ( talk) 21:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
This segment minimalizes the movie's portrayal of slavery. It implies one scene is erroneous. Can it be rewritten? 2.27.112.1 ( talk) 23:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Where's the ToC for this longish article? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:5C2A:A965:7848:31 ( talk) 17:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree with the out-of-place insertion of controversy-related content in solely the lead section but am open to the possibility of referencing this content in the article body. Pinging A person in Georgia who worked on the article, about this inclusion. Perhaps a "Social media reactions" subsection under the "Release" section with clear WP:INTEXT attribution about who said what. Or even "Social commentary" for non-review write-ups about the film's portrayal. To put it only in the lead section in highly-condensed form feels pointed. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Merzostin ( talk · contribs) is making numerous problematic edits:
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
One more thing, the wording mixed to positive should not be used, especially when both RT and MC said reviews were positive. Wikipedia Project film has consistently said not to do this. stop equivocating, stop trying to ignore the review aggregators. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48?wprov=srpw1_1#Mixed_to_positive_%2F_Mixed_to_negative -- 109.76.202.116 ( talk) 15:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The restoration of this pointed and shoehorned passage, despite some revisions, was problematic. I've gone ahead and done the following:
Seriously, let's be more cognizant that editors can behave in a RIGHTGREATWRONGS way, which is disruptive editing and violates WP:POV. Wikipedia is supposed to report about disputes in a disinterested way. When in doubt, quote reliable sources directly as they cover a controversy or controversies, or stick closely to what they say. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)