Talk:Lord of the Universe: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:57, 21 January 2007 editSmee (talk \| contribs)28,728 edits →Sources that refer to Lord of the Universe as a "FILM"← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:55, 18 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,275,304 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "FA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Film}}, {{WikiProject Religion}}, {{WikiProject Journalism}}, {{WikiProject Prem Rawat}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(250 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~talkheader~~}}		{{Talk header}}
			{{Article history
	{{Film\|class=Stub}}
			\|action1=GAN
			\|action1date=December 1, 2007
			\|action1link=Talk:Lord of the Universe (documentary)#GA Pass
			\|action1result=Listed
			\|action1oldid=174281604

			\|action2=PR
	Thanks for a well researched and meticulously sourced article. I will add some more material to provide some needed context. ] <small>]</small> 16:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
			\|action2date=December 6, 2007
	:You are most welcome. Do you have hyperlinks for these reviews you have added? I fear that there may be quoted portions of the reviews missing, and quotes in place appearing out of context. Also, the Dupont Award is very notable and should be mentioned early in the article. I will place the WIP tag. PLEASE respect. ] 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
			\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Lord of the Universe (documentary)/archive1
			\|action2result=Reviewed
			\|action2oldid=176152080

			\|action3=FAC
	:No, I do not have URLs of free online sources. I use several online databases that require payment.
			\|action3date=01:35, 10 April 2008
	#I have restored the context for Offman as it is pertinent to the article. True, people can hyperlink, but there is no harm in providing context for Hoffman and Davies which you described in your edit as an "activist".
			\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Lord of the Universe
	#<s>I have moved the award to the appropriate section rather than the lead, as done with many other award-winning documentaries. </s>
			\|action3result=promoted
	#I re-ordered the reviews in chronological fashion of their appearance as before. Could you also please provide the exact date for the Los Angeles Times review? Otherwise is not verifiable. ] <small>]</small> 20:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
			\|action3oldid=204585044
	:I will work on getting the citation date. I will restore the Awards section. This is common for most films articles. ] 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

			\|action4=WPR
	::I already did. It is now in the lead. I understand that there is a review that was published on The Christian Science Monitor, but I cannot locate it. Maybe you could? ] <small>]</small> 20:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
			\|action4date=2 February 2011
	:::Thank you for that information. I will try. ] 20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
			\|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/February 2, 2011
			\|action4result=Maindate
			\|action4oldid=411674073

			\|topic=Socsci
	Can you explain why you removed the text and described my edits as "POV pushing", when the fact is that ] was one of the ] and notable because of that? I would also appreciate that rather than making such opinions in edit summaries, you address your concerns in talk. ] <small>]</small> 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
			\|currentstatus=FA
	:That is NOT what Abbie Hoffman is most known for. He is most know for his book, ''Steal this Book''. At any rate, that is not something for us to decide, that is for the editors of the ] article to decide over there. Allow the reader to read the article there, and don't try to denigrate him here with a few words of POV pushing. It is inappropriate. ] 21:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
			\|maindate=2 February 2011
	::This is eerily similar to those editors who love to write "Example cult expert, comma, and '''anti-cult activist''', comma, believes such and such." This is inappropriate for editors to go POV pushing with labels all over Misplaced Pages. Better to restrict this to articles about the subject themselves, and leave either no rejoinder or a very simple one here. ] 21:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=FA\|1=
			{{WikiProject Film\|American-task-force=yes\|Documentary=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Journalism\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Prem Rawat\| importance =mid}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|maxarchivesize = 250K
			\|counter = 1
			\|minthreadsleft = 1
			\|algo = old(30d)
			\|archive = Talk:Lord of the Universe/Archive %(counter)d
			}}

	:::This is a very interesting conversation. You believe that it is denigrating to say about Hoffman that he was a member of the ]. For others, that is actually a ''positive'' fact of Hoffman's life as it shows his determination to fight the establishment and enhances his image of a protester. I could argue that the one pushing a POV, may be you, with your removal of that fact. Maybe time for a ] opinion? ] <small>]</small> 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

			{{Archive box\|auto=long}}
	:::It reminds me of another dispute at ] in which some editors were asking for adding a person and other asking from removing the same person, as each side believed that the addition or removal was "pushing a POV" (some saw this as a positive and others a s a negative). ] <small>]</small> 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::Let us talk about the content. Just how much space in this article do we need for context about Abbie Hoffman? He is notable for lots of things. Shall we devote an entire paragraph just to describing context about Abbie Hoffman? How about a paragraph of context for each of the individuals mentioned in the article? The companies? There is such a thing as too much context, especially if other articles on Misplaced Pages already exist on these individuals. ] 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

			== External links modified ==
	:::::This is the only movie he directed. He makes fun of Rennie Davies on it (I am researching exact quotes), etc. As such, information about Davies and Hoffman need to be sufficient to provide basic context for readers. I am off now for a while. Will return to expand the article later in the evening or tomorrow morining. ] <small>]</small> 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I like your compromise about the Abbie Hoffman context for the moment. ] 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	I think we have a pretty good article. I remember reading about a Hoffman vs Davies interlude during the taping, but I cannot locate the source. I'll keep looking. ] <small>]</small> 02:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
	:Interlude? What do you mean? I wonder if this can be given a tighter classification in the films wikiproject... ] 02:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
	::I meant that as a metaphor... i.e as an "interlude" in a section in music between one person's solo and another's. Davies speaks of Hoffman and Hoffman speaks of Davies during the taping of the film I remember reading something about that. The films wikiproject usually deals with films rather than with TV documentaries, but you could try. ] <small>]</small> 02:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::We shall see. ] 02:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	== Film? ==
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213634/http://www.vdb.org/smackn.acgi%24tapedetail?LORDOFTHEU to http://www.vdb.org/smackn.acgi%24tapedetail?LORDOFTHEU
	; {{user\|Jossi}}: How does a TV documentary that was shot in video tape using ], and shown in PBS , suddenly becames a ]? What sources describe the TV show as a film? The award, for example, was given for ] journalism. Not for a "film". I do not understand the need to "upgrade" this documentary from what it is: a TV documentary. Placing request at ] ] <small>]</small> 03:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	; {{user\|Smeelgova}}: ...

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	; Third opinion:
	If the source (which source please?) states "Film (sic)", that suggests the use of the term "film" to describe this production is not correct, in the opinion of that source.

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 23:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
	I understand where ] is coming from in that the term "film" tends to connote a feature-length production; however, ] redirects to ], suggesting that the term "film" encompasses any video recording. What is "common usage" for the term depends on which side of the pond you're on. Since the term "Television Documentary" implies the production is also a type of film, and the term "film" may be confusing in this context, I suggest letting the term "TV Documentary" stand.

	Oddly, the article mentions this production's staff are responsible for "five more films", implying that this production is also a film (and it is). Whichever way this goes, the wording should be changed so as to be consistent across the entire article. ] 04:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Thanks. Note that the source for "five more films" does not say that. It says "five TVTV programs". See ] ] <small>]</small> 04:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	== ]s ==

	As far as I know, ]s are not reliable sources. ] <small>]</small> 04:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I would concur, since they are presented as the opinion of an individual reporter and not of the news agency as a whole. Do news agencies even express opinions? ] 04:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Staying close to the sources ==

	I have edited the article to be as close as possible to the sources provided. Each edit is explained in the edit summaries. Still to be corrected in the lead in which it is still referred as a ], rather than a ]. ] <small>]</small> 05:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Sources that refer to Lord of the Universe as a "FILM" ==

	*Sources that refer to Lord of the Universe as a "FILM"
	#MediaRights , note, states "rate this film", and "film description..."
	#Williams. Bob, "On the Air," New York Post, February 25, 1974 - refers to it as "deplorable '''film'''", and yet a '''film''', nonetheless...
	#, referred to as a '''independent documentary film producer''', and ''not'' an "independent TV Documentary producer"... hrm...
	#, quoting: ''"If you take Top Value's product, and look at it very objectively, it looks like '''documentary film'''."''
	*Will add more momentarily... ] 06:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
	:Please stay as close to the source as possible. ] <small>]</small> 06:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	::That is MediaRight default settings for all customer reviews and customer ratings. That does not make this TV documentary a film (what is wrong with TV documentary, anyway?) ] <small>]</small> 06:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	::''independent documentary film producer'' does not make ''this'' a film, does it? ] <small>]</small> 07:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	:I have replaced the contested "film" categories as these are not supported by the sources. Added ] instead. ] <small>]</small> 06:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	::I will add more sources to clarify. These ''are'' justified by the sources. Please wait. Thank you for your patience. ] 06:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
	:::Sure, but note that I had to fix many of your edits as these were not kept close to the source. ] <small>]</small> 06:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Bob Williams said "film". OK. But every one else is saying "TV documentary", program, etc. We should respect the third opinion, though. ] <small>]</small> 07:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::As your "TV Documentary", is merely a ''redirect'' to "Documentary Film", it is in line with the Third Opinion to change the wikilink to TV Documentary, and yet keep the Film Categories. ] 07:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
	::::In fact, most of the sources refer to it as simply "Documentary" and ''not'' TV Documentary. This is in effect POV pushing that is not "kept close to the source". ] 07:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

	::::Where does the third opinion said to keep the film categories? We kept ] in the lead as ] redirects there, but ''this'' production is not a film, but a TV program as per the abundant sources provided. As for your baseless accusations of POV pushing, note that I did not use "TV documentary" but stayed close to the source in fixing your additions of "film" "cinematographers", "film crew", etc. that were not in the source. ] <small>]</small> 07:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, and ''those'' edits you made, are actually fine. But for the simple reason itself that TV Documentary redirects to Documentary film, and the fact that virtually all of the sources refer to the program as "program", "TVTV program" "award-winning documentary" or "documentary", the film categories can remain and are inclusive. ] 07:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
	:::::: I disagree, Smee. This is not a film and categorizing the article as such is not right. I will ask the third opinion user to comment again. Good night for now. ] <small>]</small> 07:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	:Even ''more'' sources that describe the film ''and'' the film company as a '''film''' and/or a '''documentary film'''. In addition, most of the producers of the film are entitled: '''documentary film makers'''. ] 07:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
	:Should I make a list in which sources describes '''this production''' as a TV program, or TV documentary? ] <small>]</small> 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	::If you feel you must, please do so in a new section. However, I contend that the simple fact that so many refer to it as a '''film''' or '''documentary film''' and its producers as '''documentary film makers''', suggest that at the very least ''both'' classification and categories apply. ] 07:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

	* '''emerging video technologies, thus pioneering a new means of imagemaking for television. '''
	* to commission five more TVTV '''programs'''
	* first Portapak '''video documentary''' produced for national television
	* This was the first '''program''' originally made on 1/2-inch '''video tape to be broadcast nationally'''
	* The TVTV style has smoothed out considerably since the group first won national recognition for '''programs''' on the 1972 conventions]
	* and as a peek into the future of '''television'''. ]
	I am off to bed, hopefully the third opinion edit can give us a hand with this ] <small>]</small> 07:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	**Good. If these above named reputable sources have referred to it as a '''"film"''', '''"documentary"''', '''"program"''', '''"documentary film"'''', "'''video documentary"''', '''"videotape broadcast nationally"''', and its producers as '''"documentary filmmakers"''', we begin to see a picture. At the very least - this points to a logical conclusion of classification and categorization in both domains of "Documentary film", "film", and "TV documentary". ] 07:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Latest revision as of 02:55, 18 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lord of the Universe article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Lord of the Universe is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 2, 2011.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 1, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
December 6, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
April 10, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted
February 2, 2011	Today's featured article	Main Page
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Documentary / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Prem Rawat (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prem Rawat, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Prem RawatWikipedia:WikiProject Prem RawatTemplate:WikiProject Prem RawatPrem Rawat

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord of the Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213634/http://www.vdb.org/smackn.acgi%24tapedetail?LORDOFTHEU to http://www.vdb.org/smackn.acgi%24tapedetail?LORDOFTHEU

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories: