Talk:The Widow's Might
Latest comment: 12 years ago by 202.124.75.42 in topic Lack of significant independent coverage
 | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Lack of significant independent coverage
edit- "The Widows Might, a family film". Retrieved 2010-01-16.[dead link] -- not independent, dead link
- a b Alanis, James (January 12, 2009). "Report from San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival". The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved March 20, 2009. -- Independent, but only one paragraph on the film.
- "The Significance of The Widow's Might to Independent Christian Filmmaking". SAICFF web site. April 10, 2009. Retrieved May 19, 2012. -- not independent
- "Teens Produce Anti-Tax Film 'Widow's Might'". Christian Broadcasting Network. April 15, 2009. Retrieved May 19, 2012. -- semi-independent -- marginal news source fairly closely ideologically aligned to the film and the award sponsor
- Hagerty, Barbara Bradley (February 21, 2009). "Christian Filmmakers Creating An Industry Of Faith". NPR. Retrieved May 19, 2012. -- two paragraphs + one sentence on the film, mostly quotes
This hardly amounts to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're writing off the SAICFF web site as "not independent" because they gave the film an award? Seriously? And the Christian Broadcasting Network is certainly also independent of the film. -- 202.124.72.5 (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- And therefore have a vested interest in promoting it? Yes. SAICFF is part of Vision Forum, whose mission is to promote a conservative Christian view of the family. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Now we're getting into your own ideological biases and what seems to be a conspiracy theory of some kind. If you can prove a specific link between the SAICFF committee and the makers of this film, tell us. If not, the fact that the SAICFF committee are conservative Christians (like many US citizens) is irrelevant. They (and the audience) gave this specific Christian indie film an award; in my view that alone is enough for notability, even if the other sources didn't exist. -- 202.124.72.5 (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- No I am not. I'm simply pointing out a rather blatant commonality of interest in promoting this film. Oh and ROFLMAO at accusing others of "conspiracy theory" while defending the religious right (War on Christmas, anybody?). "The fact" that SAICFF exists solely to promote conservative Christian ideology is most certainly relevant. And it is blatantly clear that the SAICFF committee's support is purely ideological: "This film attempted and achieved a wholesome family message, illustrating the difficult-to-capture functional family environment." Non-notable ideological festival gives non-notable ideological film an award. Who'd have thunk it? Film receives no notice outside the context of the award, and little from outside the state where the award was held. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- If "the SAICFF exists solely to promote conservative Christian ideology," then that should go into the SAICFF article. But it makes no difference to notability of this film, just as winning at the Vancouver Queer Film Festival would make a LGBT indie film notable, irrespective of any agenda shared between the director and the festival. The key thing is that a film is the best in its genre, whether that be Christian or something else. WP:NOTCENSORED. -- 202.124.74.81 (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, particularly when there is no indication that it's a good comparison, isn't exactly a good argument. But I suppose it's an improvement on your normal bare (repeated) assertions. Citing WP:NOTCENSORED is simply assuming bad faith. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- My bad. Your critiques of SAICFF ideology sounded like censorship, and you gave no other valid arguments. And, for the umpteenth time, WP:CIVIL, please. -- 202.124.72.238 (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have not 'critiqued' it -- merely commented upon a rather obvious commonality between the ideology of SAICFF's parent organisation, and the ideology a SAICFF judge attributed to the film. Such a commonality does not lend criticism to the ideology, nor does it suggest WP:CENSOR, it does however call into question the independence of one from the other. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just because a judge likes a film, or even the ideology of a film, that doesn't mean a lack of independence. And would you like to spell out what this "ideology" is that you're talking about? -- 202.124.75.42 (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have not 'critiqued' it -- merely commented upon a rather obvious commonality between the ideology of SAICFF's parent organisation, and the ideology a SAICFF judge attributed to the film. Such a commonality does not lend criticism to the ideology, nor does it suggest WP:CENSOR, it does however call into question the independence of one from the other. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- My bad. Your critiques of SAICFF ideology sounded like censorship, and you gave no other valid arguments. And, for the umpteenth time, WP:CIVIL, please. -- 202.124.72.238 (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, particularly when there is no indication that it's a good comparison, isn't exactly a good argument. But I suppose it's an improvement on your normal bare (repeated) assertions. Citing WP:NOTCENSORED is simply assuming bad faith. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- If "the SAICFF exists solely to promote conservative Christian ideology," then that should go into the SAICFF article. But it makes no difference to notability of this film, just as winning at the Vancouver Queer Film Festival would make a LGBT indie film notable, irrespective of any agenda shared between the director and the festival. The key thing is that a film is the best in its genre, whether that be Christian or something else. WP:NOTCENSORED. -- 202.124.74.81 (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- No I am not. I'm simply pointing out a rather blatant commonality of interest in promoting this film. Oh and ROFLMAO at accusing others of "conspiracy theory" while defending the religious right (War on Christmas, anybody?). "The fact" that SAICFF exists solely to promote conservative Christian ideology is most certainly relevant. And it is blatantly clear that the SAICFF committee's support is purely ideological: "This film attempted and achieved a wholesome family message, illustrating the difficult-to-capture functional family environment." Non-notable ideological festival gives non-notable ideological film an award. Who'd have thunk it? Film receives no notice outside the context of the award, and little from outside the state where the award was held. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Now we're getting into your own ideological biases and what seems to be a conspiracy theory of some kind. If you can prove a specific link between the SAICFF committee and the makers of this film, tell us. If not, the fact that the SAICFF committee are conservative Christians (like many US citizens) is irrelevant. They (and the audience) gave this specific Christian indie film an award; in my view that alone is enough for notability, even if the other sources didn't exist. -- 202.124.72.5 (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- And therefore have a vested interest in promoting it? Yes. SAICFF is part of Vision Forum, whose mission is to promote a conservative Christian view of the family. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're writing off the SAICFF web site as "not independent" because they gave the film an award? Seriously? And the Christian Broadcasting Network is certainly also independent of the film. -- 202.124.72.5 (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)