Talk:The Truth According to Wikipedia/Archive 1

Archive 1

verifiability

The article seems to be 99.152 to 99.156 percent accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.25.6 (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Prior GA Review

This article had a prior GA Review which was not successful. The prior review is at Talk:The Truth According to Wikipedia/GA1.

Note: I've since attempted to address all suggestions raised from that review. — Cirt (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk page clutter

Prefer to have less talk page clutter, please.

I checked Wikipedia:Talk page layout (WP:TPL) and I didn't see anything about that.

Rather keep talk page as clutter-free as possible, while still having the WikiProjects there.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProjectBanners is a collapsed WikiProjectBannerShell and WP:TPL explicitly says: "Any WikiProject banners (in a {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} template when 2+ are present, or in {{WikiProjectBanners}} when 6+ are present)". – Editør (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it to {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} -- but let's keep it collapsed, please, to avoid clutter. WP:TPL says nothing about collapsed or not. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are worried about clutter, you could better remove {{Not a forum}}. The 'not a forum' info is already in the header and there is no evidence an extra warning is needed on this particular talk page. Once removed there is more than enough space to show the project banners. – Editør (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done, great suggestion, thank you ! — Cirt (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-notable person as redlink

Would rather not have non-notable person as redlink.

Redlink existed for quite some time without a Wikipedia article about that person.

If someone creates a Wikipedia article about that person, and that article satisfies and ably demonstrates notability standards for this site, then we could add it back then.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I did some due diligence, and took a look at potential sources at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- and there's a smattering of some brief mentions, but not much in the way of in-depth coverage from secondary sources. Not sure that subject could have its own Wikipedia article at this point in time, per WP:NOTE. — Cirt (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ndesanjo Macha was the only person in the starring list that didn't have a wikilink, that why I added the link. I think that if he is notable he should have a link even when it is red, and if he is not notable he should not be in the list. – Editør (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said, and removed the name from the list. Thank you ! — Cirt (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This one is now also  Done. — Cirt (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Film versus episode

VPRO Backlight is a TV program on Dutch national television. The article portrays The Truth According to Wikipedia as a documentary film and not as an episode of the program. Is 'film' or 'episode' the right term to describe it? – Editør (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Film. Per discussion as such, in the peer-reviewed film journal, Film Quarterly, at :
  • Walters, Ben (Fall 2008). "Grey Areas". Film Quarterly. 62 (1): 78–79. doi:10.1525/fq.2008.62.1.78. Archived from the original on 24 October 2015. Retrieved 24 October 2015 – via JSTOR.
• Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The TV program itself refers to it as an 'aflevering' meaning 'episode': [1] [2], which seems more accurate to me. – Editør (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The film premiered globally at the Next Web conference in Amsterdam on 4 April 2008 -- before it was ever shown on television. Therefore, "film" is more accurate. — Cirt (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a regular Tegenlicht episode. The so-called premiere on 4 April seems to have been merely a preview of that week's episode, which aired on 8 April 2008. – Editør (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather stick with what secondary WP:RS sources say, rather than individual editor opinion. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Leitch, Thomas (2014). Wikipedia U: Knowledge, Authority, and Liberal Education in the Digital Age. Tech.edu: A Hopkins Series on Education and Technology. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 60–61. ISBN 978-1-4214-1535-2.

In this book it is called a "Dutch television documentary". So we have a secondary source saying it is a television documentary -- but not an "episode" -- rather essentially a Dutch documentary film, that happened to air on television. I think this would be an effective compromise, Editør, how about you ? — Cirt (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I generally have no problem compromising, but I think suggesting it was made as a documentary film or stand-alone television documentary is inaccurate. I would suggest the lead is changed to:

"The Truth According to Wikipedia", also referred to as "Wiki's Truth" (Dutch: "Wiki's Waarheid"), is a 2008 episode of the Dutch documentary television series Backlight about Wikipedia directed by IJsbrand van Veelen.

– Editør (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd much rather avoid "episode", as I've not come across that in secondary sources. I have already shown, above, secondary sources that refer to it as a documentary film. How about: "is a 2008 Dutch documentary film produced for the television series Backlight about Wikipedia directed by IJsbrand van Veelen. -- is that a satisfactory compromise, for you, Editør ? — Cirt (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Editør:Please see DIFF. Hopefully this is now a satisfactory compromise to you -- and we can all move on from this issue over one (1) word. Summary: Secondary sources refer to it as a documentary, a film, and a documentary film, but not an "episode", so I'd rather stick to the wording used in the overall predominance of the majority of the corpus of secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Editør:I've made yet another attempt at good-faith-gesture-edit, piping links to "documentary" instead of "film" in the lede intro sect, here: DIFF. Hopefully this is now a satisfactory compromise to you, Editør ? — Cirt (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we can be even more precise in the lead?

The Truth According to Wikipedia, also referred to as Wiki's Truth (Dutch: Wiki's Waarheid), is a Dutch documentary about Wikipedia directed by IJsbrand van Veelen. It was screened at The Next Web conference in Amsterdam on 4 April 2008 and aired as an episode of the Dutch documentary television series Backlight (Dutch: Tegenlicht) on 8 April 2008.

– Editør (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I think your version is alright as well. – Editør (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done, per DIFF. I think this is a final version we can all agree on. :) Thank you, Editør, for your polite professionalism during this amicable and collaborative discussion, much appreciated ! — Cirt (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, I think that throughout the article text 'film' should be replaced by 'documentary' or be removed ('film producer'). – Editør (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done, but I really feel that you are taking this to too much of an extreme, Editør. Please see the article documentary film. All documentaries are a form of films. — Cirt (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note that documentary is a redirect to documentary film. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't it link to television documentary instead? – Editør (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for your question, but the answer is = Nope. Aired first as a film. Aired 2nd time on television, after airing as a film. — Cirt (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The intended medium was television, as you can read in this source [3] ("Beoogd medium: televisie"), so the term "television documentary" is justified. – Editør (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The intended medium was first a film screening, as it aired first at a film screening to show the film to a film audience. — Cirt (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision website literally says about the documentary "Intended medium: television" (original Dutch text "Beoogd medium: televisie"). – Editør (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The documentary premiered globally at The Next Web conference in Amsterdam on 4 April 2008. Before it was ever shown on television. Its intended medium first to an audience was as a film. It was then shown on television afterwards. — Cirt (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

At any rate, this particular issue is now moot. Despite my strong respectful disagreement with the user on this issue, I had already gone ahead and replaced instances of "film" with "documentary" in the article.  Done. — Cirt (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

First broadcast

VPRO is a public broadcasting organization, but not a television channel. On which channel was this Backlight episode first broadcasted? – Editør (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You're the expert on television, these complaints are starting to border on silly. Every single fact and every single sentence in the article is backed up to secondary sources. Your violations of No Original Research are getting tedious and tiresome. Can you please back up your complaints with secondary sources, please? 18:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Editør:Comment: I'm sorry if I'm getting a bit frustrated by all your repeated questions and queries. I've been a bit sick and under the weather today with a bit of a stomach bug. I'd most appreciate it, in the future, if you wish to challenge something in the article, if you could back up your opinions with cited sources. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The OR claim concerning my remark on this talk page doesn't make any sense.

Since this 2008 documentary was made by the VPRO, I presume it was broadcast on Nederland 1, Nederland 2, or Nederland 3. If and when this info would be added to the article, it should of course be properly sourced. – Editør (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Agreed that if and when new material is added to any article, it should always be properly sourced. We are in total agreement there. What I don't like is using an article talk page to "presume", as you put it in your words above, anything. — Cirt (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This is still not making any sense. You are not disputing any information and not addressing the issue I raised. – Editør (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I've added the channel with an independent source. – Editør (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for (finally) agreeing to my repeated requests to back up your complaints with sources. It is now MOST appreciated. This complaint is now done.  Done. And done. — Cirt (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Producer

The infobox lists VPRO Backlight as producer, but the article text mentions Judith van den Berg as (film) producer. – Editør (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source to back up your new complaints? — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done, changed infobox to reflect the sources cited in the article. — Cirt (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"Do you have a secondary source to back up your new complaints?" >> I merely noticed a discrepancy in the article. – Editør (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done, this particular issue is now fixed and addressed and there is zero discrepancy. — Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image

The non-free use rationale for File:The Truth According to Wikipedia.jpg has some issues. The source is not mentioned, only a vague claim ("It is believed that the cover art can or could be obtained from the publisher or studio."). The description describes the image as video cover art, but there is no mention of a video release in the article, and the infobox caption describes the image as film poster. – Editør (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the standard fair use rationale for images of film posters, used all over Wikipedia. Not sure what else you want here. — Cirt (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done, Changed to caption description to "documentary promotional material", to remove the dreaded word film, LOL. — Cirt (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The 'description' reads "This is the cover art of The Truth According to Wikipedia. The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the publisher of the video or the studio which produced the video." suggesting that a video was published from which the cover art was used, but there is no mention of any video release in the article, so this standard phrasing doesn't seem to apply in this case. – Editør (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't 'source' specify where the image was taken from? The current sentence "It is believed that the cover art can or could be obtained from the publisher or studio." is vague and unspecific. Specific would be "Downloaded from [url]" or "Scanned from dvd box [name]" or "Received from production company [name]". – Editør (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Please address your complaints about an image fair use rationale to the user that added the fair use rationale, or at the image talk page, not here. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing has changed, so I don't see how you can mark this issue as 'done'. The fair use rationale is for this article, so I think this talk page is the appropriate place. – Editør (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Wrong forum. Please discuss on image talk page, or bring up your complaints with the editor that added the fair use rationale for the image. 2nd time asking you this request. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If there are issues with the non-free use rationale, the article should not be listed as Good Article. – Editør (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Per good article criterion 6a. – Editør (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Per comments by both Masem and Gobonobo, below. — Cirt (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Coming here from a discussion I saw on WT:FILM by Cirt. From the NFC side, as long as we are talking about a notable published work (with "published" including just over-the-air releases), a cover image is still reasonable to include; for TV shows, for example, this is commonly the title card of the show which is something never printed normally. That said, the sourcing needs to be a bit clearer; this doesn't look like a title card or similar, but an attempt (presumably the show producers) to make something that looks like a DVD Cover image, and a quick search, I can't find evidence it was published before. I see that the film is up at YouTube (by posting of backlight) but can't see a title card immediately on a scanthrough but if there's one in that, that can be used instead of this image.

Also to toss this out there: because WP's logo is CC-BY-SA, and the rest of the elements are arguably simple (plain text, simple geometric shapes), this image may qualify for being under the threshold of originality, but that's a separate discussion. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Editør, the description in the file's rationale is default text that is generated by the template. I can point you to a number of urls for sites that use a version of this image, but don't recall where this particular copy came from. If I had retrieved it from a production company or an official distributor, I probably would have included that. I think we can assume that Backlight had something to do with the image since they put their name at the top. It resembles a DVD or VCR cover to me, but I can't say for certain. gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the comments from both Masem and Gobonobo, this file is now at Commons under {{PD-textlogo}}. Thank you both very much for your helpful WP:FILM expert insight. — Cirt (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem of the rationale has now been evaded, but the issues remain. The linked source cannot be the actual source, because the image in the source has a smaller dimensions than the uploaded image. And based on the source both the description and author are guesswork. – Editør (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Editør, but now it appears there are three (3) editors that disagree with your confused assessments, namely myself, Masem, and Gobonobo. — Cirt (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I still agree with Editør that even if you uploaded that are a free image based on my comment, we really need to have a clear source that is either a reliable source for films/documentary (I don't think that present source does), from the producers themselves, or the work themselves. I have a feeling the cover image as you have at commons is an example of citogenesis in terms of its origins. Again, I will ask, since I don't have time to run through the documentary at YouTube - does it have a title card? --MASEM (t) 00:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Masem:I didn't see a specific title card. I'm trying to get this issue resolved in a way that is a compromise between all parties or at least a majority of parties involved. I can try to replace the image with a screenshot from the film itself. — Cirt (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to express some issues/options: First, I really really think that the "cover" looks like something someone not associated with Backlight hocked together to have an image on a list. Google Image Search nor Tin Eye is helping to find the origins beyond on en.wiki itself. If in any way we cannot prove this is the "official" cover/title card of the documentary, then it should go. As for a replacement, a title card from the documentary would be the next option. Now, in my scan I did see a Backlight intro credit, so I would be highly surprised if there was not a title card, but again, little time to scan right now and I didn't see one immediately at places I would suspect. If we cannot confirm the original source of the given "cover" and we can't find a title card, it may be necessary to forgo an image in the infobox; just taking a random shot from the documentary (which appears to be 90% talking heads of living persons, so nothing special) would not be appropriate use here. And I have tried searching archives (2008 should be easily to find digital evidence for this release) but really am not getting anything immediately useful to confirm the cover image. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: -- @Masem:I've swapped out that image and replaced with free-use image by Wikimedia Foundation from their 2007 fundraising appeal by Jimmy Wales that was excerpted and appeared in this documentary at time 19:17. It is at this point in the documentary that Jimmy Wales says his now iconic quote: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." — Cirt (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that should be okay as a free image, though I would be very nit-picky to say that you should actually take the clip from the fundraising video itself (licensed CC) to avoid any possible copyright that this document could claim on it. Realisitically, there's almost no claim that could be made - it's a slavish reproduction and uncopyrightable in most cases, but we've seen weirder situations. As a replacement infobox image, that's otherwise fine in lieu of actually getting a legitimate cover. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. But as they excerpted it from a CC-BY-2.5 video, and there's zero other text in that particular image screenshot, I think we're totally fine here. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Masem:Anticipating any further complaints, replaced image with File:2007 Jimmy Wales appeal PSA video by Wikimedia Foundation.png which is not a screenshot from the documentary but instead originally by Wikimedia Foundation, itself. @Masem:Do you think this is satisfactory, now? — Cirt (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it now should be legitimately clean, zero issues for this purpose. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Masem:So this particular talk page complaint from Editør (talk · contribs) can be considered resolved? — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this frame from the Wikipedia video actually shown in the documentary? I quickly browsed the episode and didn't find it. – Editør (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you framing this in the form of a question, if you feel you already know the answer? — Cirt (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Per third opinion as provided by expert film advice from WikiProject Film editor, Masem, above, this particular issue was already resolved. — Cirt (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Per the new talk page complaints by Editør (talk · contribs) -- I've cropped the infobox image to one that for sure appears in the film. Hopefully Masem will agree this issue is now resolved. — Cirt (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

While the existence of the fundraising video in the documentary should be readily apparent by watching the whole work, you can help it by adding a {{cite video}} or equivalent template on the caption so that you can put in the time code where that fundraising video appears. It doesn't affect the image otherwise. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

People in infobox

Not all people in the infobox are mentioned in the article, which means this information is unsourced. – Editør (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That material can be verified by the credits. — Cirt (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Archived some

Archived some threads, in an attempt to bring clarity to the confusing and repeated complaints by Editør.

I've made several good-faith attempts to go point-by-point and address the multiple complaints by Editør.

These have included my going through the article and replacing the word "film" with "documentary", which was later agreed to by Editør as an effective compromise DIFF.

It appears there is only one remaining issue, above, the people named in the infobox, which can be verified by the film's credits.

— Cirt (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop archiving recent or open discussions. – Editør (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Please stop revisiting past issues that were since resolved. — Cirt (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I fail to see which of the archived discussions were not resolved. For example, I went through and removed all instances of word "film" in article, and replaced them with word "documentary", to the satisfaction of both parties, at DIFF. There is no need to clutter up the talk page, particularly when the complaints from Editør are seemingly un-ending and ceaseless, and bordering on disruptive in nature. Clearing out the talk page of issues that were at least the ones successfully addressed as a compromise by both parties, is a way to focus on the new complaints that seem to keep cropping up, repeatedly, by Editør. It is also a way to avoid discussing issues that were already resolved, and to avoid repeating talking about things that are no longer "issues" in the current state of the article. — Cirt (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

On general principle I'd have to say that threads shouldn't be archived so quickly if there are objections to doing so. If similar issues are repeatedly being raised maybe a good compromise would be to {{cot}}/{{hat}} those that look to be resolved and wait a while before actually archiving them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:On general principle, I strongly agree with you. Here, where repeated issues that were resolved between both parties, are repeatedly being revisited, I think it's best to archive those threads that at least were resolved, to focus on any new issues. I'm trying to address everything point-by-point, as new complaints come up from Editør (talk · contribs). It's not easy, but I'm trying. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Update - now article has zero fair-use-images

Update: -- I've swapped out the fair-use-image and replaced with free-use image by Wikimedia Foundation from their 2007 fundraising appeal by Jimmy Wales that was excerpted and appeared in this documentary at time 19:17.

It is at this point in the documentary that Jimmy Wales says his now iconic quote: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."

There are now zero fair-use-images in the article.

This particular issue should now be resolved.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

All prior issues now addressed

All prior complaints from Editør (talk · contribs) = now successfully addressed.

1. There are zero fair-use-images in the article.
2. I've swapped out all instances of word "film" and replaced them with word "documentary".
3. All names of people in the infobox have now been double and triple-checked and can indeed be verified by the film credits.
4. Kept the article to mention only notable people in article body text -- namely, those with existing blue-linked-Wikipedia-articles and/or those that authored a book or work that is itself notable with a blue-linked-Wikipedia-article.
5. Channel broadcast has since been added to the article body text with source.
6. Producer info in article body text and infobox now correspond exactly to each other with zero discrepancy.

I believe now all prior complaints from Editør (talk · contribs) are done and addressed.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The issues raised on this talk page are not complaints to User:Cirt, who seems to take it personal. I would have liked to have made the edits myself to address these the issues, but User:Cirt initially reverted most of my edits, so this was not possible.

The following issues are still unresolved:

• Infobox image: see my question in that section.
• To suggest that this TV documentary was made as a documentary film that was also shown on TV is misleading. The documentary is made as an episode of the TV series Tegenlicht. The database entry of the Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision clearly states that the genre is documentary and that the intended medium was television. I have already mentioned this in a prematurely archived discussion. This does however not take away the fact that the documentary was screened at a conference before broadcast on TV, so this should also be made clear in the article.
• User:Cirt has also prematurely archived the discussion about a non-notable persons and red links. Currently not all of the interviewees from the documentary are mentioned in this article. User:Cirt has removed Ndesanjo Macha and some others from the article because they had no Wikipedia articles, while they play a significant role in the documentary. Their names should be added here, even though they are possibly not notable enough to merit their own individual article on Wikipedia.

I am going to leave the resolution of these issues to the discretion of the GAN reviewer, who will hopefully be thorough in following up on them. – Editør (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Replies to new reversals of past positions, and complaints by User Editør

1. Infobox image: Addressed. Per comments by third opinion provided by experienced WikiProject Film Editor, Masem, above. Please see Masem saying this issue is now resolved, per DIFF.
2. NOT suggested it was made as documentary "film". Per prior discussion, ALL uses of word "film" were removed and replaced with word "documentary", which was later agreed as effective compromise, per DIFF. This appears to be yet another troublesome and quite disturbing instance of Editør (talk · contribs) reversing their statements from the past, yet again.
3. Haven't seen any effective reasons mentioned as to why to talk about non-notable people in the article body text. Didn't see this argumentation from Editør (talk · contribs) before. This appears to be yet another form of new complaint from Editør (talk · contribs), yet again. Please see prior comment by user, where they agreed that non-notable people should NOT be in list, and now are reversing their prior position, yet again at DIFF.
4. Agree that best way forward is to hear from GAN reviewer on these issues and defer to their judgment. Good idea, Editør (talk · contribs), thank you. — Cirt (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

2nd attempt -- attempts at outreach and compromise, again

1. As noted repeatedly already, I've removed all instances of word "film" from article, and replaced with word "documentary", despite my disagreement on this complaint from Editør (talk · contribs) -- I've done this already anyways, as a way to try to move forward from the repeated complaints by Editør (talk · contribs). This was previously agreed as a good move forward, per DIFF.
2. I've cropped the infobox image to an image that is both free-use, and appears in the film. This addresses suggestions from both Masem and Editør (talk · contribs). The image is now both (1) free-use-licensed and (2) from the film itself.
3. I've added back in article body text the non-notable people that appear in the film. They should not be red-linked, as they are non-notable, and they should not appear as highlights in the infobox, but they can appear in article body text. This was previously agreed to, in a comment from Editør (talk · contribs), at DIFF.
4. Now, at this point in time, all prior complaints from Editør (talk · contribs) are successfully addressed. Hopefully we can all move forward from here, now. — Cirt (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)