Talk:Kiki (2016 film)

Untitled

AlexAnderson97 (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC) This article could be improved upon by me by going more depth into the movie. Furthermore, there is no talk page about this subject, suggesting that this is a topic that has not been looked into a great deal. There is also an issue of it being labeled as an American Swedish movie which, to my current knowledge, is not the case.

It was made by a Swedish director, double-check IMDB for film credits perhaps. You could also add more critique of the film or a section on literature comparing it to Paris is burning. Loranmarsan (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I am thinking of adding a possible comparison of this movie to its predecessor "Paris is Burning" as they have similar themes. I could look at how drag and the ball scene has changed since the first film, as they are about 26 years apart. I think another addition that could be useful is addressing the topic of HIV/AIDS activism within this film. --JereSierr (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

be careful of "original research" - make sure to find sources that make this comparison, you can't. Loranmarsan (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I have added a section on HIV/AIDS activism in the film to this article and plan on adding some more information about that soon to help improve the article a little more.--JereSierr (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I added another paragraph to the HIV/AIDS activism section as well as made some minor wording/grammar editsJereSierr (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2019

I think there are aspects of genderqueer, race and class-based defamation within this article that instead of understanding the many problems within the LGBT community, desensitizes the reader with rough language and no clear solution. Could the use of the language be a little less "charged", i.e. could there be the usage of words that have majority support in being euphemistic instead of dysphemistic? The overall description is also very tangential, where there is not a clear outline to what the documentary is really trying to change for the better. I am sending a legal complaint to the Wikipedia Reponse Team if there is no motivation to meet in the middle. Sjoseph2 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You can suggest a new version by replying here below and reopening this edit request – Þjarkur (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you kindly be more specific about exactly what problems you perceive in this article's use of language? Dropping all of the filmmakers' names down to just their first initials, like you tried the first time, ain't on the menu without a stated reason for it, for starters, and you also removed a lot of words that are in no way problematic and tried to alter a direct quote. You can't just assert that this article is "desensitizing the reader with rough language and no clear solution" — it's not even the article's job to "solve" anything, the article's job is just to describe a film. You need to show specific examples of exactly which words are problematic and why, not just demand unspecified changes. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The GLAAD is based upon the principle of anti-defamation within the LGBT community. Therefore, the integrity of the documentary is lost by words that are not explained well. The word drag for instance, is derogatory and vague, it does not really tell anything about the person within. There is no reason to instigate legal proceedings for this, or am I incorrect? We could, therefore, change the following to decrease stigmatization and your colonial mentality:

1. drag to genderqueer
2. black lives matter to black pride
3. stigma to homophobia
4. H.I.V. to S.T.D.
5. remove the topic of sex work

Sjoseph2 (talk)

 Not done It seems that this article is just reflecting how reliable sources speak of this film. Your proposed changes seem to change the meaning substantially. – Þjarkur (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

To address your points one by one:

(1) "Drag" is not suddenly a verboten term in LGBT culture now: yes, certainly some people in the ball culture scene identify as genderqueer, nobody's denying that and the article even acknowledges it, but people who identify as drag performers most certainly are still a part of the voguing and ball culture scenes and we're not going to pretend they're not.

(2) "Black Lives Matter" is contained in a direct quote. Which means we must quote it strictly verbatim, and cannot alter one comma of what the original source said. If you don't like it, then take it up with the person the quote came from, because it's not our job to alter their words.

(3) I'm not seeing any problem with the places where the article uses the word "stigma" at all — it links "stigma" not just to queerness per se, but to race and age and serostatus as well, which are issues not covered by the term "homophobia".

(4) HIV to STD for what reason, exactly? You do realize that virtually all other STDs are curable, so HIV is the only one that becomes a significantly life-altering issue that can't be eliminated with one week of antibiotics, right?

(5) The topic of sex work is addressed in the film, and this article points that out as something that distinguishes this film as different from Paris Is Burning. So again, not seeing the problem — it is not our job to pretend that a theme present in the film is somehow not present in the film.

None of these terms are "defamatory" at all — and the only one that's even slightly controversial is, again, a direct quote that we cannot alter. And you're also failing to address why you tried to truncate the first name of every single person involved in the film down to just their first initial, why you tried to remove the link to List of LGBT-related films of 2016, why you tried to eliminate any mention of the word "kiki" from the article body (which, um, title of the fucking film), or why you tried to completely break the referencing section. Not one word in this entire article is falling afoul of GLAAD guidelines for writing about LGBTQ-related topics at all — and you can trust me on this, not one thing about my "mentality" is remotely "colonial" at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection

From WP:PREFER: "Administrators who have made substantive content changes to an article are considered involved and must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions. When involved in a dispute, it is almost always wisest to respect the editing policies that bind all editors and call for input from an uninvolved administrator, rather than to invite controversy by acting unilaterally." I don't see "Persistent disruptive editing" to indefinitely protect the page. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Countering vandalism != "furthering one's own position in a content dispute". Administrators do not lose the right to shut down non-consensual vandalism just because they were one of the reverters of it. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)