Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

June 2015

Regarding the recent edits, I am fine with removing the other nominees for sound editing; I had only thought it was worthwhile for readers to see what other films America would compete with. As for the lead section, I think the attempted version was far too bland to be serviceable to the readers. Fine if we do not want to reference the official website, but I am sure we can find an independent and reliable source that can support this description. (It is not like the website actually says "perceived" anyway.) I am on the road, so I cannot linger here. But I can follow up to replace the source to support this similar wording tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 10:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be great if you could find independent RS to rewrite the lede, but we don't write text first and then cobble together references to suit it after the fact. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Upon review, I think we can just remove the reference. The sentence was not intended to be fully based on the reference; I added the reference to clearly highlight the historical topics covered in the film. The preceding wording is not covered by the reference, but it is adequately covered in the article body. Per WP:LEADCITE, this can be done unless the wording is suspect. We can discuss whether or not to include "perceived", but I do not find the conservative and liberal angles to be challenged since the article body covers this in depth. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you point us to well-sourced text within the article that you feel supports that statement in the lede? SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead section summarizes parts of the "Political commentary" section. National Review's Jay Nordlinger identifies D'Souza as conservative. Same periodical's John Fund identifies the film as a response to U.S. progressive critique. This is further supported by the U.S. News & World Report and National Journal references. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I've read the sources and the current article text and tried to re-write it more NPOV and without the weasel and straw man language. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the political labels because they are relevant to mention here; none of the sources discuss the documentary without the liberal-conservative dichotomy. It is appropriate to label the filmmaker as conservative; there is no source that would contradict this. In addition, the sentence makes clear that it is his perception, which is attributed in the article body. To write just "various controversial issues in American history" is too simplistic. Why do you think it is appropriate to remove the political labels? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I've notified several WikiProjects inviting them to comment on how to describe the documentary's premise. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate that the addition is supported. As I've said the lede text that I removed was WP:WEASEL and entailed the straw man (which may also be presented in the film) that critics of various policies or those who regret various historical events are deniers of the entirety of American history and achievement. The use of this kind of equivocation and the straw man device for dramatic or polemical effect should be explicitly described and neutrally presented. I presume you notified a neutral cross-section of talk pages, so let's see what develops. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (from WP:FILM) – I agree that describing the filmmaker as "conservative" is unnecessary since it loads the lead by encouraging certain preconceptions. It is also generally unhelpful in a worldwide context to label someone "conservative" this and "liberal" that because the terms carry different means in different countries: there are fundamental differerences between say a British conservative and American conservative for example, so there isn't a solid reference point for the terms. These labels are all relative. To draw a comparison with another political filmmaker, Michael Moore is undoubtedly a "liberal" filmmaker but Fahrenheit 9/11 gets by without describing him as such in the lead. On the second point I think that saying the film "addresses various controversial issues in American history" is an overly strict application of WP:NPOV that gets us nowhere. There is no need to obfuscate the film's political agenda: the film is specifically challenging what it regards as inaccurate "leftist" interpretations of American history, so basically it would be helpful to the reader if the lead mentioned something along those lines. Betty Logan (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to mentioning the filmmaker's straw-man caracatures of "liberal" views, but if the article is to be written that way it has to be made clear that those characterizations of the "liberal" "politically correct" views are the filmmaker's device and not a reflection of mainstream consensus such as would justify using such terminology in Wikipedia's voice. SPECIFICO talk 03:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, can you clarify what was weasel wording? Was it "perceived liberal critiques"? I've re-worded it to indicate better that the filmmaker sees the historical events that way. Betty Logan, I've removed the "conservative" label for now since you and SPECIFICO appear to agree, and I think you make a good point about "conservative" having different meanings. However, I think that something similar is worth including. Coverage about the film mentions both the filmmaker being conservative and his addressing historical highlights as liberal. What about something like saying, "The filmmaker, a U.S. conservative pundit, approaches..."? I've seen the "conservative pundit" label in a few sources, and it's not disputed since it's self-professed. I find that Michael Moore should be identified as a liberal filmmaker along the same lines. Like we would identify a scientist's background for producing a science documentary, or a historian's for a historical documentary, we're identifying the relevant background here. The label is not intended to warp any perceptions but to follow sources in framing the topic. What do you think? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The characterization of the "leftist" political narrative regarding history is a contentious claim and can not be represented in Wikipedia's voice. These are opinion articles and such claims must be used with direct attribution. Specifico is right in wanting a neutral based summary of the film which can be extracted from sources without the bias and slant mixed into them. I'll also add that the views being used to write the summary of the article exist within the minority opinion of critical reviews, which makes absolutely no sense. Wikipedia is suppose to represent what the majority viewpoint of a subject and, therefore, the language and how the film is summarized should represent how the majority of reviews/reliable sources summarize the film. It should certainly not be written from the perspective of the 8% of sources that viewed the film positively.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not being represented in Wikipedia's voice. It is clearly written that the director himself sees these historical events as negatively highlighted by liberals. To cast it in Wikipedia's voice would be something like, "The filmmaker shows how historical events are being negatively highlighted by liberals." That is a more authoritative statement than indicating that the director sees it that way. We need to be able to outline the premise of the film. For example, the heavily-discussed Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed opens with explaining that the documentary contends with evolution. To just say "addresses various controversial issues" is to avoid talking about any politics that are clearly involved. This does not mean that Wikipedia is saying that these historical events are leftist highlights. It is attributing the premise directly to the filmmaker's perspective. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Would "contends", like what Expelled uses, work? It is a stronger word than "approaches", which I am fine with. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The wording "the filmmaker addresses various controversial issues in American history" is weasel wording. WP:WEASEL says, "A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint." To simply say that a part of history like black slavery is a controversial issue, as if there was some good basis for it, is extremely suspect. The point is to identify the parts of American history that are covered in the documentary, to attribute that the director contends that they are being negatively highlighted by U.S. liberals, and to also attribute that he counters with positive highlights. What part of that is disputed, especially when we attribute? Do we need to switch it around to mention the parts of history first, then state how the director sees it? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Erik, I've left you a note and a request on your talk page. Meanwhile, the use of "liberal" and "conservative" should be removed. Mainstream sources do not affirm the filmmaker's use of these terms or his use of them in the narrative he presents in the film. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You highlighted two issues: weasel wording and straw man arguing. I asked you if the weasel wording was "perceived liberal critiques" and have updated the wording so it is clear that it is the filmmaker that sees it that way (per WP:INTEXT). As for straw man arguing, are you referring to identifying Dinesh D'Souza as conservative? I'm not understanding this part. This identification is repeated across all reliable sources. He is a self-professed conservative. The National Review identifies him as that in reviewing the film. Using "conservative" is not meant to be pejorative. It's a political stance that everyone agrees that Dinesh D'Souza has. The question is whether or not to use the label here. Looking at Ronald Reagan, a Featured Article, it does not mention conservatism in the first paragraph. Maybe we can follow that example and just identify D'Souza as a political commentator? That's what Dinesh D'Souza uses as well. (It does mention his affiliation with conservative organizations in the second sentence, but it's not a Featured Article, so I don't know if that approach is vetted.) We can establish D'Souza as a political commentator, meaning he comes from having that background, and readers can either click his name or read on in the article to find out more? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. No, I think the straw man, which D'Souza uses as a dramatic and rhetorical device, is to identify out-of-mainstream leftist views with the label "liberal". "Liberal" is a mainstream American view, as we've seen in every Presidential election of the past 20+ years with the exception of 2004. On a related point, except for his own self-characterization, there's not much to identify D'Souza with mainstream conservative views. In fact many RS mainstream news sources -- not opinion articles -- call him right wing, for example: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. This WP article should not adopt D'Souza's self-interested suggestion that his views are part of serious American Conservative thought when mainstream RS tell us otherwise. The reader needs that made clear at the outset. SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that text from the opinion section. Contrary to the unsupported claim made when it was removed from the lede, the cited source is not an editorial or opinion piece, and the text should be reinstated in its original position in the lede. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggested the label "conservative" in the broadest sense, and I do not see "right-wing" as mutually exclusive. Just searching for Dinesh D'Souza and "conservative" shows a lot of valid results as well. It seems worthwhile to use "U.S. conservative" and link to conservatism in the United States and to leave it at that. Certainly there are different flavors of conservatism, and I don't see the use of "conservative" here to mean that he is necessarily an establishment conservative or whatever. I do find that we should not apply the political label in the first sentence, but we could add it in a second sentence. Do you still feel like "right-wing" should replace "conservative" entirely? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources state that DD'S is "right-wing" so yes I believe we need to do that here in the lede. WP articles about controversial and fringe topics are beset by erroneous claims that WP should not reflect language used by well-sourced mainstream references when some readers might consider such language unfavorable. If anybody would care to state a policy-based rationale for excluding the descriptive term used by multiple mainstream RS to characterize D'Souza's work, I am all ears. On the other hand, it's not our job to second-guess what strong neutral sources have to say. These are solid journalistic sources. I'm distressed that this material has twice been reverted with no adequate policy-based rationale. I think that the term should also be used elsewhere in the article, but I think it is important to provide the mainstream orientation to the reader at the outset. If I understand you correctly, I believe you agree with me that "conservative" is not well-defined and thus could be construed in various ways depending on the reader's prior knowledge or experience. For this reason, "right-wing" is a clearer, more specific and more encyclopedic description of D'Souza's work and views. SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"Right-wing" is often used in a derogatory sense so we must tread lightly. Because this article is about the film, not the man, putting right-wing in the lede is UNDUE. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Put it in what you consider an appropriate position. There's nothing derogatory about RS sourced mainstream content. It gives the reader mainstream context and if anything helps explain why the film was so poorly received by the mainstream media. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I am still not seeing the distinction you want to make here. Right-wing politics says at the end of its lead section, with citation, that right-wing politics in the United States is an integral part of conservatism in the United States. Before this part, the lead section talks about right-wing politics in a non-U.S. manner. So I'm finding "U.S. conservative" (with the relevant link) to be the more appropriate term to use here. But again, I do not think it has to be in the first sentence, if we are to follow the example of Ronald Reagan, which does not mention his conservativism or the Republican Party at the onset. Srich32977, what do you think about using "U.S. conservative" with the appropriate link, perhaps in the second sentence? From what I've seen, coverage about this film frequently provides this descriptor for the director or the film itself. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Erik, I don't think Srich is disputing "conservative". To your point above, while right wing may be a part of conservative, it is not the same as conservative and therefore specifying, as Reliable Sources do, that DD'S is right wing serves to differentiate him from mainstream conservatives such as Bush, Romney, Kristol, et al. Srich has twice removed the word from the lede, claiming he objects to that location, but he fails to put the text in any other suitable location in order to reflect what mainstream RS references say and resolve this issue. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Right wing is part of the conservative spectrum and I don't dispute that DD is conservative. But seeking to label him as a "right-winger" is inappropriate in this article – which is about the film and not the film-maker. Does the RS say his interpretation of history in the film is right wing? I don't think so. (After all, the Guardian and New York Times have been described as left wing.) Well then, using the term anywhere in our article is inappropriate, The issue is resolved once we focus on the film and not on side issues. – S. Rich (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Please try to stay on-topic here and respond to the content issue without reference to your personal opinions, which are not the relevant criteria. You've twice attempted to conflate editorial or critical opinions expressed on various publications with the journalistic standards which make them WP:RS for this descriptive text. Please restore the content you've removed twice now, either in the lede or in some other location you feel is more suitable. SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Srich32977, I think we should think of adding the political label of "U.S. conservative" as a basic descriptor. If someone comes from a specific field and makes a film, it is worth noting the background of that person. It's not someone who has been in film for years, meaning they can just be called "filmmaker" or "director". If someone comes from another field (science, history, music, whatever) into film, it's worth highlighting. (And sources do repeatedly highlight that D'Souza is a conservative/right-wing pundit.) Per the Ronald Reagan example, I do endorse not applying the descriptor in the first sentence, but I think it can be applied in the second sentence as part of framing what the film is about (following other sources). Would this be feasible? SPECIFICO, do you not think the Ronald Reagan example is worth following to defer a political label to be after the first sentence? Also, we should not think of this label as "explaining" why the film did not do well. It is not relevant. 2016 did a bit better than this one in reviews, but if we wouldn't exclude the filmmaker's political label from that just because of that better reception. It should just be about highlighting the background where it is relevant, in line with sources, regardless of other factors. Also, the New York Times reference you had before says in the headline that D'Souza is "a conservative firebrand". I don't understand why this was used to endorse "right-wing" explicitly? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The NY Times uses "right-wing" three times in that reference to describe DD'S. It's important to reflect what multiple RS say to describe not denigrate DD'S thought. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with right-wing thought, but the term "conservative" is far too broad. Reagan and many others are aptly described by RS as mainstream conservatives. Heck, Reagan was elected President twice -- he is by definition mainstream. DD'S on the other hand is characterized by RS in their news articles as right-wing and it is important that we reflect that description in the article. There are ample straw-man arguments, such as questioning the editorial stance of the NY Times or claiming that a news article is a stealth opinion piece. None of them is a policy-based rationale for excluding a concise and apt description, per RS, which orients the reader to DD'S views and helps give context to virtually every sentence in the article. Right-wing may be a subset of Conservative in the USA but that doesn't mean we state only the broad and less descriptive "conservative" which describes a very broad class. We should be clear, precise, and specific in our language as it reflects mainstream RS references. We don't call A-Rod or Beckham "athletes" -- we refer to the subset which is commonly used to refer to them: baseball player and footballer. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on America: Imagine the World Without Her. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726003953/http://www.metacritic.com/movie/america to http://www.metacritic.com/movie/america

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced claim of consensus among political commentators

SPECIFICO attempts to keep adding unsourced language to the lead section that makes the broad claim that "few political commentators found any merit" to the film. The "Political commentary" section is solely comprised of individual analyses. There is nothing in the section that states on a high level what the overall consensus is. We cannot take individual opinions and provide our own take on them. In contrast, the "Critical reception" section has high-level sourcing that consolidates the critical reception, which is why this language is appropriate in the lead section. There is nothing similar in the article that does this for political commentators. Maybe it is out there by now, but we cannot draw a general conclusion on our own from the political commentary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As a non-American, I was confused by a phrase in the Lead. "Conservative commentators expressed a mix of full and qualified support for the documentary and D'Souza's intentions."

Which of the commentators below were the conservative ones? Commentators are named in-text, but not their ideological affiliations. Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources for CinemaScore

The sources being referenced for this rating by Cinemascore don't meet Wikipedia's reliability and verifiability standards. For the same reasoning we don't include sources that link back to Wikipedia, these sources are even worse because they don't link to anything at all. Furthermore, from Cinemascore's own website: "If you can't find your movie, it was not polled by CinemaScore." The tags should not be removed until reliable and verifiable sources can substantiate the claim or the claim is removed, as per Wikipedia policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Upon further research, it appears the claim originated from Deadline Hollywood and no sources are supplied or given to verify the information. Clearly the Cinemascore was never actually published or released.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I was going to say to keep it until we can validate it further, but I couldn't find CinemaScore grades for D'Souza's other films either, either on the CinemaScore website or elsewhere online. A little surprised there was no refutation from CinemaScore about this one, especially with a bold "A+" grade claim. Here is the diff in case more information ever comes out. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, reviewing TheWrap, it says, "Audiences loved the film, giving it a rare 'A+' CinemaScore, and 92 percent gave it a 'definite recommend' in exit polls." The second part makes me question taking out the content since it is a rather specific detail. It does not seem likely that CinemaScore never polled audiences, more that for whatever reason, the film is omitted from their database. Perhaps we could re-include the content but leave it out of the lead section and have the Film School Rejects commentary to pose the question? I may try to message journalists who reported on the grade to see if they can investigate the matter at all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, to add on, the article states later on, "The audience was split nearly evenly in terms of gender but skewed older, with 69 percent over the age of 55. They were mainly Caucasian (93 percent) and 82 percent of those polled described themselves as 'very or somewhat religious.'" This is the kind of demographic detail that CinemaScore provides. I'm even more keen to re-include it since there is less and less doubt that the information is dubious. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Erik,I appreciate you taking my concerns seriously. How about we adjust the sentence to say "According to Cinemascore exit polling, audiences gave the film an A+ rating, though the score doesn't appear on the Cinemascore website." Then we can put both sources. I'm also fine with dumping the "though the score doesn't appear on the Cinemascore website." though I prefer it. My main concern is that the article doesn't infer the comparison to movies that are actually listed on Cinemascore with an A+ rating since this only seems to be based on exit polling. For whatever reason, the polling didn't make it to the official website and didn't receive an official score from Cinemascore. At least, there's no evidence that it did. Let me know what you think.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)