Wikipedia

Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her/Archive 9

< Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her
Latest comment: 9 years ago by TheRedPenOfDoom in topic References to use
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

New lede problems.

Latest comment: 9 years ago39 comments7 people in discussion

Erik, when I made a couple of minor tweaks for clarity and neutrality to your recent, massive alterations you immediately reverted without adequate explanations, so I'd appreciate them here. First, you say "Mainstream film critics panned the film as partisan." I changed that to "Most professional movie critics panned the film as partisan." You reverted. In this context, especially given the political commentary that immediately follows, "Mainstream" could be misinterpreted as a political qualifier. What's wrong with saying "professional movie critics", or adding "most", since there are noteworthy film critics who praised the film? It's a clear, precise description that's not denigrating in any way. VictorD7 (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I added "professional" instead of "mainstream". I was seeing them as the same thing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. But you also deleted 1990'sguy's qualifier "majority of", saying in your edit summary that you "removed "The majority of" since one non-reliable blogger ID'd at RT does not break the overall consensus". RT cites two critics who praise the film, RT is apparently reliable enough for us to cite its aggregation, and that doesn't include the review from Toto, a very well established pro film critic who wasn't cited for that particular movie by RT for some reason (it's a non comprehensive sample) but routinely is cited by RT (and his review for this movie was cited by other media outlets). Those are three pro critics right there who didn't "pan" the film, and there are others. The current sentence makes it sounds unanimous, which is misleading. I'd ask that you restore the qualifier "Most..." for accuracy. VictorD7 (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I made the change. Reporting critics' consensus even for non-political films on Wikipedia is a pain anyway. I do disagree that saying something like "Film critics liked the film" or "The film got negative views" implies totality of that opinion. It is extraordinarily rare for a film to accomplish true universality in positive reviews; even Toy Story 3 has 4 negative reviews out of 280 total. It would be odd to say "most" professional film critics liked the film. However, here we do not have a big sample anyway, so I'm fine with restoring the conditional wording. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Now moving on, you also reverted my expansion of the political commentary segment because you objected to the "liberal" qualifier. That issue has been resolved since you altered the sentence's "critique" language, but that revert also wiped out a clause I added to the conservative commentator sentence that read, "...while critiquing what they perceived as political bias on the part of film critics." Reception to this movie clearly broke down mostly along party lines, and the film critics aren't immune from that, as anyone can see by actually reading the reviews. This political dynamic at play in the reception, or at the very least the perception of it, needs coverage here. This view is most saliently (but by no means exclusively) represented by the Shapiro article. Here's an article by notable conservative media analyst and nationally syndicated columnist Brent Bozell about it. Here's a piece by Christian Toto on it (a different article than his review) that includes a quote by producer Gerald Molen on the issue: "“In our film we talk about the shaming of America and how progressive elites attempt to silence the average American,” says America producer Gerald Molen of Schindler’s List fame. “True to form, some critics have attacked the film in ways that I’ve never seen before and yet actual filmgoers have given it the highest rating of any film this year. The people have spoken and we’re thrilled with their support and look forward to America’s continued rollout." [http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/left-comes-out-screaming-against-dsouzas-america/ World Net Daily ran an article] on it called "Left 'comes out screaming' against D'Souza's America", which in part quotes D'Souza himself making similar arguments. And a slew of conservative blogs have repeated the same theme (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). Since not every conservative pundit explicitly commented on the pro film critics, I could compromise by qualifying the segment along the lines of ".., with some criticizing what they perceived as liberal political bias on the part of film critics." Or maybe a statement about D'Souza and Molen doing so, with conservative commentators agreeing. But the widespread (essentially unchallenged) conservative view that most pro film critics are leftists, and that this colors their reviews of explicitly conservative political films, needs coverage in this article, and I'd ask you to consider restoring some type of mention of it in the lede. VictorD7 (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
So why are you continuing to argue? Wikipedia represents the mainstream subject matter experts. If as you say, the mainstream subject matter experts on films are "leftists" and the article represents the mainstream subject matter film experts. We are done. Appropriate presentation achieved per WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
No, we're allowed to cover pro critics' opinions but guidelines explicitly make it clear that we aren't restricted to only covering their opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I changed "critiqued" to "analyzed" to get away from any perceived negative connotations, as I sort of see where you were coming from. As for the clause, the lead section is supposed to be based on the article body. Therefore, using only the Shapiro passage to make the claim that "[multiple] conservative commentators... [were] critiquing what they perceived as political bias on the part of film critics" is weasel wording. Other sources would need to be included in the article body to support that claim. In addition, considering that the Shapiro passage is under debate to be included in the article body at all, if it cannot even be included in a marginal sense, it does not by itself meet WP:LEAD to be part of a summary of the article's most important points. (If you have issues with other sentences in the lead section, we can discuss them.) I would prefer that we see how the RfM concludes before going beyond the mere inclusion of that passage. As for the other sources, we can discuss these as well as this that I found today. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This by The Washington Post states, "'America' was widely panned by critics and those on the left, while making $2.75 million its first weekend." Sort of tangential, but including this with the other sources would help frame it accordingly. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Even though D'Souza and Molen themselves comment on the issue of political bias among critics? I also linked to Brent Bozell doing so, so that's two notable third party commentators doing so without counting the WND article, and Toto, who's already quoted in the article, wrote an article about it too. When I get more time I'll dig up some others. The article is supposed to represent the various viewpoints, not include every single example of each one, but I'd be fine with adding more of these examples to the article if you feel that's necessary to justify a lede mention of the obvious political dynamic at play (liberal pro critic bias and/or the conservative perception of such). The page is under protection now anyway, but if Shapiro's quote remains when it's lifted would you consider agreeing to a lede mention? VictorD7 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The issue is wp:weight. You have three far right sources saying, "well they just reviewed it that way because they are liberal". These are three people. This isn't some major point of the American right. It shouldn't be included because it does not have enough significane to be included.Casprings (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Bozell, Shapiro, Molen, D'Souza, and Toto are more within the American political mainstream than most pro film critics are, but that's just an aside in reply to your "far right" label. Those are just a few notable examples. They represent the conservative consensus that most pro film critics are leftists, and that this bias predictably colors their reaction to explicitly conservative documentaries. That consensus makes it more than significant enough to warrant our coverage. It's not even clear that leftists disagree with the bias part. Do you know of any sources that dispute that most pro film critics are left wing? VictorD7 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Casprings that it would be undue weight. On a summary level, it is problematic to state that film critics panned the film, then to immediately follow that with the conservative claim that negative reviews were essentially because the critics were liberal. This is false balance: "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." I find it an "extraordinary claim" that has not risen to mainstream attention. The mainstream sources have essentially said that the film got negative reviews and that conservatives praised the documentary. In the article body, I support the Shapiro passage because it is in the margins of the coverage of critical reception, which is appropriate per WP:UNDUE, "The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." This is why I fleshed out individual reviews that fall under the mainstream consensus of the film being panned; it gives readers a better look at what each film critic had to say about the film.
When it comes to the lead section, WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis applies: "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." This is why the false balance of the two sentences should be avoided. The article body has enough detail to achieve a balance of coverage mainly for the consensus view, but the lead section does not. I think the only plausible approach to have is to have a paragraph committed to critical reception where it is a more detailed summary of the relevant section, followed by the conservative claim. However, I'm not sure if we can strike that balance since this particular film has not gotten as much of a consensus breakdown as other films do. (For example, an overview of the critics' consensus may conclude that the visual effects were stunning but that the story was lackluster.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Erik I Basically agree. However, I don't think the whole quote. This a minority voice within the American Right. This does not require the whole quote per WP:Weight. All that needs to be said is, "Certain columnist on the American right such as ______ and _______ stated the negative reviews were the result of the political bias of the reviewers." That's all that is needed.Casprings (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about covering this in the article body? Replacing the Shapiro passage with that? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Sorry that was not clear. But I think that makes the point and also gives it the relative weight in the article.Casprings (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
No, given how much the reception sections (plural) have been expanded, including five large paragraphs of negative critics' quotes, not counting the paragraphs dedicated to quoting liberal pundits, we can and should quote this conservative view advanced by multiple notable pundits and the filmmakers themselves about the reception even if it is deemed a "minority" one, though it's still unclear at this point whether it's even disputed. I don't know any conservatives who disagree, or any published liberals who would dispute at least the part about most film critics being left wing. No one has presented any such examples. VictorD7 (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In fact a topic of this importance should really have its won subsection, like the ones Erik has added (perhaps along the lines of "Conservative criticism of critic bias"), quoting Shapiro, Bozell, and possibly D'Souza and/or Molen. That would be 3 or 4 figures notable enough to have Wikipedia articles all being quoted on the issue, which is more than any of the other subsections currently enjoy. Of course if someone can find a counterpoint disagreeing with them I'd be happy to include that too. It's unclear why this view on the reception dynamic itself, which is more fundamental than coverage of a few opinions from mostly non notable people (except Fund) on niche issues like Zinn or Alinski, is less deserving of emphasis than those various niche issue are. VictorD7 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Then, Erik, we have to return to the questions I asked you before. For clarity, how are you defining "mainstream" here? Also, keep in mind we're quoting subjective opinions here, not scientific consensus. False balance would only apply within the pertinent set, like if we're covering the set of pro critics and we imply as many liked it as disliked it, which the article has never been in any danger of doing. It does not apply in a cross set sense. In the set of political pundits, where the breakdown was roughly 50/50, we can't say that praise for the film or criticism of the pro critics is a "minority" position simply based on the opinion distribution of pro critics. The pro critics aren't everything. VictorD7 (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Mainstream sources are the non-partisan sources used in the article: The Times-Picayune, The News-Press, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, The Hollywood Reporter, and USA Today. The Washington Post that I linked above is another. These collectively report that the film was panned, with some saying that conservatives praised it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
They report that it was largely panned by pro film critics, not by most people to have seen the film (the opposite is the case), nor by most notable commentators to have seen the film. Follow up questions: 1. Where do you get your definition of "mainstream" as meaning "non-partisan"? Is that definition provided in Wikipedia policy somewhere? 2. Does that mean you're assuming the pro critics are "non-partisan"? 3. Are you aware of the fact that all those sources you list, but particularly the Washington Post, USA Today and The Hollywood Reporter, are widely seen as partisan? VictorD7 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Seen by partisan by who? It's not like this movie was only panned by professional critics. Conservatives also panned it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2014/07/20/dinesh-dsouzas-america-will-have-some-conservatives-yearning-for-michael-moores/ . Casprings (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Tamny is a Libertarian party activist, as I've pointed out here before, and not a mainstream conservative in the sense that D'Souza, most writers at Breitbart and National Review, and many Republicans are. Most conservatives who commented on the film praised it, and virtually every conservative sees the above old media sources as liberal, but so do many non-conservatives. Look through this huge list of quotes from media insiders, most of them liberal, admitting that their outfits have a liberal bias: [4]. Heck, the Washington Post started regularly endorsing candidates for president in the 1970s, and has never endorsed a Republican. Washpo even endorsed Walter Mondale over Ronald Reagan. Reagan won 49 states (and came a few thousand from winning his opponent's home state to capture all 50) in the biggest presidential electoral landslide in US history, but he didn't get the Washington Post's endorsement. Polls have also consistently shown that far more Americans see the old media (Gallup asks about "newspapers", "tv", and "radio") as too liberal than "just about right" or too conservative, with about three times as many (roughly half the country) seeing it as too liberal as too conservative, and in 2013 74% of Republicans and 50% of independents seeing it as too liberal (only 5% of Republicans and 12% of independents said too conservative), while a majority of Democrats said it was just about right (57%; only slightly more Democrats said too conservative than too liberal, 21% to 19%). That partisan split among the rank and file alone is telling, as is the significant minority of Democrats who agree with Republicans. VictorD7 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It is not constructive for any WP editor to offer a personal opinion which applies a label to a published source. In fact, it's on the verge of a BLP violation with respect to the author. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
So you're opposed to editors using labels like "reliable", "partisan", "mainstream", "conservative", "liberal", "fringe", etc.? Gee, and here I thought source evaluation was part of our job as editors. VictorD7 (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
There is extensive documentation of the WP standard as to "mainstream" and "reliable" as those terms pertain to our editing here. That is not the case with the tags you attributed to the Forbes columnist. Please don't raise straw man arguments here and don't attribute red herring views to other editors. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't. So, to be clear, your problem was that I described him as a "Libertarian", based on the link I provided of him raising money for the Libertarian Party? VictorD7 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am saying that reliable sources in the mainstream report the news that film critics, in their profession, panned the documentary. WP:SOURCE says, "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include... magazines [and] mainstream newspapers." The sources used here are well-established news outlets that have reported this kind of critics' consensus for all kinds of films. They collectively represent the significant viewpoint of how the film has been received by critics. It is an exceptional claim to state that the film only got bad reviews because the critics were politically biased. That is why it is a false balance to follow this significant viewpoint with the extraordinary claim. WP:VALID states, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
No one's suggesting we don't cover critical opinion (or even give it the highest, most prominent placement), but, with respect, you didn't answer my questions, Erik. Where in policy does Wikipedia draw the distinction between "mainstream" and "partisan" that you did above? We certainly aren't limited to only covering pro film critic opinion, especially when there's a controversy involved in a movie. There's a consensus that we cover the general political reaction to this explicitly political movie; heck, you've been the chief agent in adding such material to the article. The view that pro film critics have a leftist bias is a mainstream view in the world of political commentary, and far from an exceptional one. So far neither you nor anyone else has produced a single source even disagreeing with it. Nothing in policy makes pro critics sacrosanct or free from criticism, especially when our coverage has expanded to a set of reliable sources much larger than pro film critics. Reliable sources are allowed to disagree with one another. If one assumes, for the sake of argument, that conservatives are right on this and liberal reviewers are largely letting their political sentiment color their judgement, then we would be grossly derelict in omitting that view from this article, and would be guilty ourselves of peddling leftist propaganda, using bloated, hostile critics quotes to essentially say "DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE!!!" in flashing letters. That's not what this encyclopedia is supposed to be about. Even if conservatives are somehow wrong, and the fact most pro critics are leftist doesn't color their reviews in any way, that so many people think they do is a vital part of this subject we need to cover. Remember that we're merely quoting opinions here, not describing scientific theories in Wikipedia's voice. This isn't an issue for most movies, but clearly the prospect of political bias merits addressing when the subject is an explicitly political film, especially when multiple notable commentators have published entire articles specifically making such claims. What's the harm in doing so, unless one has a vested interest in hiding the issue? VictorD7 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
That last crack at Erik is exactly why so many people have a problem with your behavior. Was that really necessary? Gamaliel (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
You're the last one to talk about people having problems with one's behavior, but I honestly didn't mean it as a crack or a shot at Erik. I meant it as a hypothetical and asked because I'm confident Erik doesn't have such an interest. VictorD7 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
What I meant by "non-partisan" are sources that do not primarily engage in politics. For example, National Review has a political modifier to it, and so does Daily Kos. The mainstream papers do not have them. Per WP:SOURCE, such sources determine the significant viewpoint. We have been discussing whether or not to have the "exceptional" conservative claim in the lead section. I was saying that in the "Critical reception" section, the Shapiro passage is appropriate (though I see now that it is actually in "Political commentary" for some reason) because it fits WP:DUE, "...the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." In the section, that "sufficient detail" is the fleshing-out of individual film reviews since we know that the significant viewpoint as reported by mainstream sources is that film critics panned the documentary. In the lead section, we do not have this "sufficient detail" to flesh out the panned-by-critics viewpoint. If we report just the consensus in brief and then the conservative claim, then it is equal validity, which is problematic per WP:VALID. Like I said earlier, the claim could only fit if we have more detail in the lead section (e.g., a paragraph focusing on critical reception) about the negative reviews, followed by the exceptional claim. I'm not really sure if we have enough aggregate detail for that. One possible example to use in the lead section would be referencing Rotten Tomatoes's statement about the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Erik, I don't see the words "partisan" or "political" anywhere in WP:SOURCE, and "mainstream" is left undefined, though Bias in sources and WP:BIASED certainly make it clear that reliable sources can be biased. I've mostly seen "mainstream" used here to refer to a particular view on a topic. Presumably when describing sources it could just refer to being widely read, prominent, and not generally pushing fringe views. Regardless, I'm not sure the distinction you draw between a paper like WashPo and Breitbart or National Review is relevant to this particular context, where we're covering the spectrum of political opinion. Some no name opinion writer (complete with his own biases) at an old print media publication (which in some cases here only has a circulation of a few thousand) doesn't necessarily merit more coverage than a notable political pundit being published online. Note that WP:SOURCE lists the writer as one of the three meanings of "source".
Back to the lede, is it your position that Wikipedia should take sides and treat the critics as if they're correct? Because my understanding is that we're simply noting the fact that they hold the views they do. The DUE segment you quoted exists because such false equivalences could mislead readers. For example, giving equal space (sans aggregations or summaries) to positive and negative critical reviews could mislead people into thinking just as many pro film critics liked as disliked the film. That's the potential harm. But we're in no danger of doing that. We're simply covering what different groups thought. The conservative commentary is separate from the pro critic opinion. No misleading. In fact you already juxtapose "political commentators" and "conservative commentators" with "professional critics", and there's nothing misleading about that. Does your segment stating that they "expressed a mix of full and qualified support" for the film establish a "false balance" with the pro critics who panned it, or are you just accurately describing the views of an entirely different but extremely significant group of people? If the latter, then why would adding the conservative view on the critical reception be any more of a false balance? We aren't changing our characterization that the pro critic view was negative; we would just be fully covering the issues related to the reception of this movie (perhaps even with something milder and vaguer than I previously proposed, like "..., and commented on perceived ideological bias in the critical reception). The view isn't "exceptional". That deals with fringe scientific theories or conspiracy theories, not to very widely held (and extremely plausible) subjective opinions about movie critics that are attributed to key notable people, and that we don't even have sources disputing.
In the body you currently dedicate almost twice as many paragraphs and far more words to political pundit commentary than you do to pro critic commentary. Is that undue, or are you just fully covering a subject that far transcends the pro critics' thoughts on the film? In that realm of political punditry, the conservative view is not obviously a "minority" one. Our duty is to accurately portray the views of critics and other groups, not to shield any of those groups by omitting the fact that they've been heavily criticized. Such omission would be misleading. I say that in abstract, understanding that you do support covering the view in the body with at least the Shapiro quote, and am just addressing the reasoning behind diminishing its coverage to the point of excluding it from the lede. VictorD7 (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Erik. That said, it might be better for all parties to wait for mediation. This is not going anywhere.Casprings (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The RfC was closed. Mediation will not undo an RfC result. And many have declined mediation for that reason, which means MedCom will almost certainly reject it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The mainstream sources state that film critics panned the film, and I find this cohesion to mean that we should state that same outcome without caveat. I've made my comments under the impression that the Shapiro passage was in the "Critical reception" section, and I still think it should belong there, not "Political commentary", since it is in specific response to that reception. As for the "Political commentary", I think this section can be treated as distinct from "Critical reception", so I do not think they weigh against each other. As for summarizing that section, I identified the sub-topics that most frequently came up among the commentators. As for what conservative commentators thought, we could remove that from the lead section since we don't actually have an independently-reported summary statement of that like we do with the film critics. This topic is unfortunately too narrow and too new to have that, as opposed to something like American Sniper, where there is enough reporting going on that summary statements about the political commenting exist to reference. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Shapiro's quote belongs in the Political commentator section because he's a political commentator, Erik, not a pro film critic. In fact a compromise allowing for the inclusion of Shapiro's view was why the Political commentary section was created in the first place. Covering this view held by Shapiro, Bozell, the filmmakers, and many others isn't adding a "caveat" to the fact that most pro critics panned the film (though I still question your exclusionary use of the ill-defined term "mainstream" here), especially since it's not included in the pro critics section; it's simply covering another major topic of discussion relating to this film. Shapiro belongs outside the set of pro critics and isn't bound by the weight of their opinion any more than the other political commentators you quote. As for the notion of restricting ourselves to "independently-reported" summary statements, I'll note that your very large Political commentator segments/lede summary statement isn't summarized by independent reporting either, and is instead taken directly from original sources via editor (mostly you) evaluation, which is perfectly fine and doesn't violate policy. We should extend that same treatment to the view on the obvious critical dynamic at play espoused by multiple notable, professional political commentators and the filmmakers themselves. I certainly oppose removal of the conservative commentator segment from the lede. Since you added the segment it may not be technically considered a revert, but I'm registering my opposition so it would certainly be a contentious move that shouldn't be taken without clear talk page consensus first. VictorD7 (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Shapiro's statement is appropriate in the "Critical reception" section because it is a meta-assessment of the reviews, similar to the meta-assessments that are in the initial paragraph. The statements in the "Political commentary" section are individual assessments of the documentary itself. We have not maxed out the space in the lead section, so it is possible to reference material from the critical reception section's initial paragraph (e.g., quoting or paraphrasing the summary statement from Rotten Tomatoes) so there is sufficient detail about film critics panning the film, followed by the conservative claim. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree it could fit in the critical reception section as a meta-commentary (though it's not an assessment of the critics' views, but rather the conservative view about the nature of the criticism, and doesn't contradict the assessments given by others that most critics panned the film), but it fits better within the separate category of "political commentary", and, again, is the main reason a Political commentary section exists in the first place. I could live with your proposal here, assuming you're suggesting expanding the lede sentence on pro critic opinion and including a mention of conservative commentators' views on political bias in the critical reception in the later sentence, and not saying we should blow the lede up into a monstrosity with multiple negative critical quotes. VictorD7 (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I found in the film ..many informative items.I do have this to add.

The book .".The Pedogogy of the oppressed.." (sorry I don't recall the auther ...though he is hispanic ) .Has a lesson:

Although the" succsessful" may be in a dominering position they are not nessasarily clear...

The workers ,the common folk have skills that are far and beyond those that may be in the positions of ,,POWER or in the positions that "APPEAR" to be in control.

These are the skills of need....Of survival,of evolutional requirement.

The general thesis of this wonderful book is that ...Drop the chip on the shoulder...Realise that it is for us the creative and skilled ones to help the oppressor (As it were)..to learn the skills of compatablity,and usefulness to one another.

We share all the success ...We share all the pains None of us are immune..and all of us are in the f,,,n story.

Thom Feb. 2 ,2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.204.58.248 (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thom. I am not sure what you are asking about adding to the article. The sources we reference are directly connected to the film. For example, we would not use a history book to take it upon ourselves to analyze a historical film. Looking at Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I do not think it relates enough to this topic to be included in this article, even in a "See also" section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom request (declined by the Arbcom)

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

  – a request for arbitration concerning this article has been opened at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case#America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her. – S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Note – the request was declined. – S. Rich (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed legislation

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This by The Hollywood Reporter reports that Representative Hays is screening the documentary to gain support for the legislation. I added this content to the "Proposed legislation" section, but SPECIFICO removed it, stating, "Revert excessive detail not directly about the film, per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS." The article definitely pertains to the film and is a proper update to the "Proposed legislation" section. We can summarize the added content further if needed, but the blanking is unnecessary. In addition, it is reasonable to report D'Souza's opinion in addition to others' -- the critics, the liberal advocacy group, and the local Libertarian party. This is not a case of finding the screening on AMC Theatres' website and reporting it; the film industry's trade paper The Hollywood Reporter found it worth reporting. WP:NOTNEWS says, ""While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." I do not think that this new content is treated differently than other content; it is an appropriate recent development to the proposed legislation. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel that its undue detail and not adding encyclopedic content to give a blow by blow of an event which is related to but not a part of the film itself. Imagine reading this article several years from now. Would this content be significant per se? I don't believe so. The details of the efforts to include the film in school curricula would be relevant to a separate article about the legislation. Given some of the issues and statements that have been raised by advocates and opponents of the legislation, I could see an argument for creating a separate article about that effort. What do other editors think? SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
We could cover the screening in a more straightforward manner to just say that Hays screened the film for fellow lawmakers. Would that be possible? I do think it is worth including Movie to Movement since they have been mentioned in "Marketing" already. This shows their continuing involvement with the film's marketing. As for quoting D'Souza, I don't know if that was problematic apart from covering the screening. As for splitting the content into a sub-article, I don't think the section has enough detail to warrant that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I prefer Erik's op version. The paragraph is at least relevant to the article as the preceding, still remaining one is, and is arguably necessary for full, balanced coverage at the detail level already established. Neither UNDUE or NOTNEWS applies here given the coverage already present. VictorD7 (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Perpetuation of Social Mobility myth

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

During his self-introduction (starting around 9m30s) Dinesh D'Souza says: "This country does something truly unique. It allows you to write the script of your own life".

However, our article on Socio-economic mobility in the United States quotes a couple of sources and says:

"Several large studies of mobility in developed countries in recent years have found the US among the lowest in mobility".

So the whole premise of D'Souza, that all the terrible things that he goes on to describe has created a country of unique socio-economic mobility, is actually false - the validity of his subsequent criticism of the country nothwithstanding.

I think this is a notable point of criticism. Lklundin (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It may be a potential point of criticism, but it would only be a notable point of criticism that we could refer to if a reasonably high-profile critique of the film made just that criticism - in which case we could cite is as, "According to Foo, D'Souza is wrong when he claims in the film [etc.]." We do not, as Wikipedia, make our own criticisms (or even identify potential criticisms) of cultural products such as documentary films. Metamagician3000 (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
We would need to have a reliable source assessing social mobility as depicted in the documentary. We can't counter D'Souza's argument with general statistics. If there are no such sources, we could include the link in the "See also" section or revise the synopsis to include the link so readers can visit the general-topic article and draw their own conclusions. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. My understanding is that D'Souza asserts that his own anecdotal experience is an example of a general truth that makes the USA unique. So why can't his assertion of a general truth be countered with general statistics? Lklundin (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It would be synthesis, a type of original research, because the general statistics would be used as a specific editor-driven counter to the initial claim. WP:OR says, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." That's why the sources here directly comment on the film. If there is commentary in response to the social mobility stated in the film, we can include that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
It is against policy to comment on the factuality of what the film says, we can only state what reliable sources say about it. I do not see it as necessarily an error anywhere. Maybe the individual in the U.S. has more opportunity but liberal teachers have persuaded them that they do not or perhaps the U.S. liberal welfare and minimum wage laws have made individuals complacent. That's the type of discussion we can avoid by sticking with policy. TFD (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, for the record, those studies only represent one narrow way of looking at the issue and are arguably misleading since they focus on relative mobility, as opposed to absolute mobility (an individual rising in absolute terms over time, regardless of how others are doing in comparison), and compare the US to nations with artificially compressed income distributions. The US has a higher median income and a wider income distribution than most other developed nations, which one would expect with a freer economy. Therefore it's simply mathematically harder to rise up the relative scale than it would be in a nation where incomes are mashed close together and there's less ground to cover to change quintiles, even if an individual does better over time in absolute terms in the US. There's also the fact that the type of American Dream D'Souza talks about isn't contingent on other people failing and falling down the ladder (or being pushed down by the government), which is what's involved with relative social mobility. More opportunity for high end success in America almost necessarily results in less economic equality than countries with less opportunity but more equality like Poland, North Korea, or France. That said, the US does still have a great deal of relative social mobility too, with large percentage changeovers in quintile makeup in both directions every decade or two. VictorD7 (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

References to use

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What specific content are you proposing to add from these? Or are you just aggregating some sources for other editors to use in developing proposals? VictorD7 (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm just listing references that could potentially be used here. I find that over time, references can be harder to find if one does not know what to look for. It's easier to list them as they appear. I'm doing the same thing with Wolf Totem (film); see Talk:Wolf Totem (film)#References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In that case, do you mind if I add some to the list, starting with these (added below)? VictorD7 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
hmm, i thought WMD and theblaze were both blacklisted... -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her/Archive_9&oldid=1086310789"