Template:Did you know nominations/2016: Obama's America

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

2016: Obama's America

(

)

~~... that 2016: Obama's America is the first documentary by Schindler's List producer Gerald R. Molen?~~

Created/expanded by Lionelt (talk). Self nom at 05:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a review, just comments. To assist the nominator, I did some copy edits this afternoon. Then, early this evening, I started to revise the references from the original bare URL's. However, during the course of revising the references, I realized that at least one set of modifications made to the article is inaccurate and, I suspect, politically motivated. I really believe that we need to stay objective in writing articles. I don't believe the modifications were made by the nominator. They are in the "Production" section. I will be happy to partially rewrite the affected section when I have a chance tonight or tomorrow. Please see (talk) of article. Anne (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The same contributor made misleading statements about opening weekend statistics. I'm going to address this now. Anne (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Article has more than doubled in length since the above comments; a complete review is needed more than ever, with especial care for the "is neutral" part of "within policy". BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This is another US presidential election hook. I'd be happy to not approve any, from all sides. We are getting a lot of these I don't think we really want them on the front page. Secretlondon (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm brand new to DYK, so don't bite me if I'm wrong here, but shouldn't an article violate at least one of the DYK rules to be disqualified? It seems to me that disqualifying articles because they contain certain political content is effectively the same as publishing articles because they contain certain political content. The last thing Wikipedia needs right now is another DYK editor scandal. It's my belief that as editors, we should exercise maximum discernment before disqualifying this article. Lenschulwitz (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The comment above is based on an (admittedly rather common) view that US election cycles end up flooding the encyclopedia with negative/positive topics relating to the candidates. It probably won't be failed on its political nature alone, although I suggest running this after the elections. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This movie is a hot political topic in the U.S. right now. It is highly related to the ongoing presidential election campaign. The article is getting thousands of hits daily without the benefit of DYK. The main effect of running the hook in DYK before the election would be to generate accusations that DYK is playing partisan politics. After the election, few people will care. Consistent with the rationale behind the rule that says "Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates", this should not run in DYK. --Orlady (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Disqualifying this article from appearing in DYK would be a very bad decision that would initiate a new Wikipedia DYK scandal. Those editors who have proposed disqualifying this article because of its political nature would do well to take a look at recent DYK history. If they in fact accept the notion that disqualifying highly political topics in DYK prior to the U.S. elections is a good idea, then they really should have prevented this article from running. Especially considering that the main hook: "'put the brakes' on Barack Obama's presidency" is entirely unsourced or even mentioned in the article, given that both the article and source read: "put the brakes on Obama's legislative platform". Considering that DYK editors decided to publish the aforementioned highly political and unsourced hook - a hook which could easily be seen as favorable towards Obama - after this 2016:Obama's America article had been nominated, the decision to refuse to publish this article merely for political reasons, can and will be seen by outsiders as political favoritism and censorship in Wikipedia's DYK. My proposal is that we avoid this scandal and publish this article. (Edit: Also, to Orlady, preventing this from being published in DYK would in no way be consistent with the 30 day rule you reference. As far as I'm aware, the U.S. election doesn't occur until the 6th, which is still 36 days away! However I do believe that the rule is relevant, given that it means getting this article - which was nominated nearly two months ago - on the DYK page ASAP should be a priority.) Lenschulwitz (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is good to go for the DYK mainpage. I've read it and checked the sources thoroughly. The nomination is in compliance with DYK rules and the hook is "hooky", factual, and properly sourced. I've also addressed all of the concerns raised in this discussion by other editors. Being the oldest DYK nomination, this article should already have highest priority, but in addition to precedence, user Orlady has raised the issue of the 30 day rule, and so this hook/article should be given super-de-duper high priority, so that it appears on the DYK mainpage no later than October 6, 2012.Lenschulwitz (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Article does not currently meet NPOV standards. The "Reception" section mischaracterizes reviews as "mixed", when at best they are "mixed to negative": Rotten Tomatoes is at 29% and Metascore's 40 is the lowest in the "mixed or average category" (range is 40 to 60), plus the next two paragraphs of presumably neutral newspapers and magazines are relentlessly negative. Only when the partisan conservative media are referenced -- National Review and breitbart.com -- are there positive reviews, and there are no balancing opinions from the liberal equivalents. The reflection of this reception information does not appear in the lead, which instead talks about the "quality of the film's production" (the two partisan reviews are cited here); the lead should properly include only information that is in the body of the article, and accurately summarize what is there, reflecting its balance.

I should also point out that we have, since mid-September, been sequestering election-related hooks for running after the election (three hooks about people who are also candidates, though I have no idea what they're running for). If we're holding these already, this one should probably be held as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The assesment of "mixed" has been removed, it was added by an editor who was not aware of the need to assess only the professional critics and presumably came up with "mixed" based on the fact that the publics submitted reviews at the site were positive. And the industry paper Variety review has also been re-added with its positive comments about the production values. I have seen no reviews from any standpoint that in any way disparage the production values. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

An attempt to summarize the overal critical response has been added as well as an overall negative review that also calls out the quality of production. Are the NPOV concerns now addressed? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User BlueMoonset claims: "I should also point out that we have, since mid-September, been sequestering election-related hooks for running after the election." And I should point out - once again - that this is simply not true. Just look at Wikipedia's recent DYK history and scroll down to the 'Do Not Ask What Good We Do' hook. Did this unsourced (see my post above) hook just happen to slip by? I feel that it's worth mentioning here, that from the time the aforementioned unsourced hook was nominated, to the time it was published, you, user BlueMoonset, made 153 edits to the Did you know nomination page. Yet in the span of 10 days, you made no attempt to "sequester" the Obama-related nomination, even though the words "Barack Obama's presidency" appeared right in the hook! In contrast, you flagged this article - which unlike the unsourced Draper hook, happens to be critical of Obama - within hours of its being approved. Where's the NPOV? (Please note that I have edited the '2016' article in accordance with your other concerns) Lenschulwitz (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Some articles have certainly been sequestered; I was under the impression that it was all of them, but it appears I was incorrect: my apologies. This particular hook was promoted in the first several days of the special holding area, and as everyone here is a volunteer and comes and goes, and not everyone is aware of what was a developing situation, different ideas were bound to happen. The discussion here shows differing opinions of when it's too close to an election in DYK terms. I might not have set it as soon, but I'm one person, and was happy to go along with people who felt it was time, as this is my first general election with DYK.

Just because I'm around and editing doesn't mean I notice every one of the hundreds of articles nominated and reviewed and promoted, much less think about all the ramifications involved. I don't think anyone could unless it was their full-time job. The number of my edits is irrelevant, except perhaps as a failure to assume good faith. As for your insistence that the hook was unsourced, now that I look into it, I think you may well be mistaken, and in any case can understand why the reviewer passed the hook. Not only is the specific "put the brakes" quote there in the fourth paragraph of the HuffPost article, as you note, but there is this telling phrase from the lede: "top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington". The phrases "submarine [Barack Obama's] presidency" and "put the brakes on Barack Obama's presidency" look pretty similar to me; if anything, the former is a stronger statement. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Geez, thank you, BlueMoonset. I was wondering if everyone was just going to let Lenschulwitz blatantly lie about the hook being unsourced.

On an entirely separate note, I see no reason why we shouldn't allow this hook and article through. Stopping a political hook would be then having a political bias. Not judging things based on their relation to politics (though make sure the article is judged for neutrality) is the most neutral way for DYK to go. Silver seren^C 04:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I would have said something sooner about Lenschulwitz's claim had I looked into it sooner, I promise you. As for the hook and article, it would probably be ready for approval if the second paragraph of the intro, which is about the article's Reception section, were not still misleading: it should start with the general summation, and then move into subtopic summary. Instead, it takes a relatively unimportant facet, the production values, and leads with it, giving a false overall impression, and violating NPOV. Once the paragraph is recast appropriately, I imagine the article will be ready. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Anything? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- If we are going to run this, we should probably wait until after the election (so Nov. 7 at the earliest). So soon before the election, and people will accuse us of trying to influence the outcome in favor of Romney. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I think we need a reviewer to give it a final review. If the article has been updated so it addresses the issues I discussed above, then it should be approved; if the issues have not been addressed, it should be rejected; and any new issues should be noted so they can be addressed. If the nomination is approved, then it should be moved to the special occasion holding area along with the other post-election hooks where, as LonelyBoy2012 notes, it would be held for a set that posts on or after November 7. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Approve it. Please. Lenschulwitz (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

the overall review has been removed from the lead. we have not been able to find a source that we can quote to give a "poor overall " reception assessment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well you should have rephrased the statement rather than removed it as I think a summary of the reviews is relevant to the intro in an article of this type. Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I didnt remove it, another editor did.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you restore it, specifically citing Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, so there can be no argument about whether or not the film got "overall" poor reviews. Gatoclass (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Exclusive Agent's analysis wrong? [1] or what phrasing would be applicable summary of the review sites? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No, his analysis is not wrong, but as I tried to explain, the problem is one of phrasing rather than content. To meet NPOV, the lead needs some mention of the perception among many reviewers that the movie is partisan, otherwise I would feel obliged to disqualify it for DYK. I will try to add something to the lead tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

i have added another attempt. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That looks better. I'm a bit busy right now but I will try to find time to complete a review of this article in the next day or two. Gatoclass (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made a correction and some tweaks. Let me know what you think. Gatoclass (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I approve. Lenschulwitz (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I have edited the lead in accordance with BlueMoonset's concerns, and after reading the rest of the article consider it to be NPOV. Given that I've edited the article now however, it would probably be best for someone else to approve it. The one outstanding issue I can identify at this point that will need to be fixed is that the hook statement, that Molen was the producer of Schindler's List, doesn't actually appear in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

the original hook suggestion seems more focused on the director than the film. how about something like: 2016: Obama's America, the 4th highest grossing documentary, was initially released in only one theater? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fine as long as you can source it. Gatoclass (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

4th box office from boxoffice mojo [2], opening in 1 theatre [3]. Is BOmojo a valid source? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That looks fine. I suggest you make a formal submission of your hook for verification. Gatoclass (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

 New enough, long enough, neutral, sourced etc.  The caution due to the proximity to the election was correct in my view, but that is no longer a concern.  The original hook is best.  To kill any quibbles, I added the lead from Gerald R. Molen as a footnote to his name where it first appears in this article. He really did co-produce Schindler's List. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the Schindler's list note as pure WP:COATRACK. his work on schindler's list and association with speilberg have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

What? When writing an article about a film, it is natural to say what other work the producer and director have done. Identifying that the producer is known for Schindler's list in a footnote scarcely counts as using this article as a coat-rack for a discussion of Schindler's list. It is interesting that the producer of such a well-known film made this documentary. Is there some hidden agenda here? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

when writing a magazine or puff piece about a film, it may be appropriate, but this is an encyclopedia article about a particular film. unless there is something that directly ties the previous outside work to this article, for example if we have d'souza saying "i specifically chose him because I wanted a 'schindler's list' look to the documentary" - but otherwise it is just name dropping. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous comment. It is natural to give brief context when naming people in an article. The reader sees that a play or film or whatever was made by Smith, or starred Smith, or has music by Smith, and they ask "who is this Smith?" The article should tell them: "Smith, known for ...". There can be no justification for removing relevant context. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

O.k. I am slow. I get it now. Duh. You are concerned that mentioning that the producer has done some well-known work could be some sort of attempt to add legitimacy to this documentary. I don't buy that argument, and stand by my comments above. It is relevant to say what other major work the producer has done with this and any other film. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If they want to know what Smith has done, they click think to find out about Smith.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Many people observing the U.S. elections from the outside would find it interesting that the backers of a political propaganda film like this one would/could hire a producer with such impressive credentials. The short footnote giving background on the film's producer is entirely relevant, and the original tag expresses what I find to be one of the more interesting aspects of the film. Only in America! Aymatth2 (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

and many people would find d'souza's marriage and career blowing up during this period to be interesting, too, but that doesnt mean that they closely related enough to the actual subject of the article to include talking about them here without third parties specifically commenting upon their importance and connection and not just existance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I was really hoping this was an approval that could stick, but since when does a note qualify for a hook fact? If it isn't relevant to mention him and his experience in the article proper, then a footnote from the lede isn't going to do the trick. Either mention his association with Schindler's List in a meaningful way in the body of the article, or delete it and use the ALT hook suggested above about the film's gross. Here's that hook, properly formatted, and with the newly added information that Box Office Mojo's figures only go back to 1982 (article has been adjusted accordingly):

ALT1: ... that 2016: Obama's America, the fourth-highest-grossing U.S. documentary of the past 30 years, was initially released in only one theater? —BlueMoonset (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get the "past 30 years" bit? I can't see that in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

we could go something like "grossed $X million in Y weeks after opening at just one theater" then we dont need to worry about boxoffice mojos recording dates.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's 2012, and the article says since 1982, so 30 years. The ALT hook could be changed from "of the past 30 years" to "since 1982", but I thought the former read better. Or the new approach could be used, but you'd need a source that freezes the movie gross numbers in time, which Box Office Mojo doesn't seem to do: the article gives an October 2 date, but the page now gives an October 11 date, meaning that particular bit of information is no longer verifiable. Whatever the reviewer decides is fine by me. However, I've added an icon to this paragraph because the article has two bare refs, 4 and 25, and these need to be fixed before the article can be approved again; it shouldn't have been approved yesterday with these bare refs. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the bare refs. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I am verifying Bluemoonset's hook above based on the preceding discussion and my own review of the article. This one has been here far too long and I see no reason to hold it up any longer. Thanks all for your contribution to the debate. Gatoclass (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)