Revision as of 19:12, 27 February 2010 editCharles Rodriguez (talk | contribs)93 edits →SandyGeorgia the only one allowed to change this page?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:30, 14 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,028 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
(382 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Article history | |||
{{WP Venezuela}} | |||
|action1=PR | |||
{{Film|class=Start}} | |||
|action1date=18:07, 30 March 2010 | |||
{{WikiProject Ireland |nested= |class=Start|importance=Low|attention= |peer-review= |old-peer-review= |image-needed= |needs-infobox= |listas= }} | |||
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film)/archive1 | |||
|action1result=reviewed | |||
|action1oldid=352910162 | |||
|action2=FAC | |||
==Urban myth?== | |||
|action2date=17:01, 18 May 2010 | |||
I recall reading somewhere that, mysteriously, this documentary has never been shown on television in the USA. Someone please renew my faith in freedom of speech in that country and tell me that isn't true, is it? ] 06:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film)/archive1 | |||
|action2result=promoted | |||
|action2oldid=362820633 | |||
|currentstatus=FA | |||
:I don't know about that, but I know it has been shown on ] and ], but the makers wanted to release it as a feature but couldn't find a distributor. ] 14:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
|maindate=18 March 2011 | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|listas=Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film), The| | |||
{{WikiProject Venezuela|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Film|Documentary-film-task-force=yes|core=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Ireland|importance=mid|attention= |peer-review= |old-peer-review= |image-needed= |needs-infobox= | |||
}} | |||
}} | |||
{{CotM|project=Venezuela|year=2010|month=3}} | |||
{{Archive box|] ]}} | |||
== Source == | |||
I am not sure if it has ever been aired on an American Network but it was shown on the CBC in Canada. (Hedel) | |||
*{{cite book | last1=Wayne | first1=Mike | last2=O'Neill | first2=Deirdre | year=2011 | chapter=Form, Politics and Culture: A Case Study of ''The Take'', ''The Revolution Will Not Be Televised'' and ''Listen to Venezuela'' | editor1-last=Kapur | editor1-first=Jyotsna | editor2-last=Wagner | editor2-first=Keith B | title=Neoliberalism and Global Cinema: Capital, Culture, and Marxist Critique | series=Routledge Advances in Film Studies | publisher=] | isbn=978-0-415-88905-6 }} | |||
I was told that in the university class where I saw it, and to add insult to injury the professor added that the film was first turned down by American distribution. The only people who distributed it (at that time anyway) were European. | |||
Found a possible source to use. ] (] | ]) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
] 13:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I may be wrong. page's "Contents" tab only has a chapter mentioning ''Listen to Venezuela''. I found the above source through WorldCat.org, so it's possible it was outdated. ] (] | ]) 21:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::I think you might be right; the chapter in question (a reproduction of an article from '']'') only namechecks ''Revolution'' once. It may be that the editors decided not to include whatever it was going to be, or a simple mistake, but I'll try to look further. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 22:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Congratulations == | |||
This would be easy to verify - there are about 5 major networks in the U.S. - ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN (possibly MSNBC). Check their websites, call them, send them email. I also heard that none of them aired it. I'm a Chomskyite, so I would be amazed if anyone did show it. But check for yourself. Our press is free to do what they want, but they never do anything that would be bad for profits, like showing a capitalist plutocracy (U.S.A.) orchestrating a coup against a democratically elected socialist president in our own hemisphere. (IMHO) | |||
Congrats to the editors who got this worked up to FA (and AOTD) status. I was living in Venezuela during the coup and, long ago, contributed to some of the early articles dealing with it -- including this one. Nice to see where this ended up. Great work. ] (]) 01:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
I know that The Amnesty international didn't dare to show it on their moviefestival in Canada, becouse the opposition in Venezuela (who did the coup) "couldnät guarantee the safety for amnesty members in venezuela". That's horrible. | |||
FASCIST PROPAGANDA!!! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Curiously, this DVD has been listed on Netflix as "Availabilty: Unknown" for over three years, despite the fact anyone can easily buy the DVD on various websites as well as watch it for free, just not with Netflix. | |||
:True, it's a shame Misplaced Pages's bias pushing this kind of propaganda of Hugo Chavez and his totalitarian regimen in their first page. Congratulations to those editors responsible, they are making major advances to make Misplaced Pages another feud for the left-wing sectarianism. ] (]) 22:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Critiscism is not really that valid == | |||
::Hi. If you took the time to read the article, you'll find—I hope—that it presents only solidly-cited information about this film's production, without offering support to Chavez; indeed, large parts of the article feature criticism of the filmmakers (while at the same time quite rightly presenting their rebuttals to the charges levelled against them). Please don't take the appearance of an article about a subject as an endorsement of it; by that measure, would you take ]'s appearance on the main page as an endorsement of Nazism? Yes, I ]. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 22:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
I recently decided to watch all three documentaries about the Puente Llaguno events. I highly recomend that you watch them in this order. | |||
== Film title == | |||
"Puente Llaguno: Claves de una masacre" The best documentary by far (Revolution is only good for the inside Mirflores cameras and that is it IMHO), they chronologically construct the event masterfully using EVIDENCE (they use the sun dial trick only once) ie they look at a range of pictures and check the watches, they use audio syncronization with the cadena to determine the exact minute of the famous Venevision video, they check the date stamp from digital cameras indy cameramen give them, etc. Show extra footage etc. A must see but it is a crying shame it is only in spanish. | |||
Correct me if I'm wrong (it's a long article!) but I don't see any links to the poem and 1970 recording by ] - article ] - from which the film took its title. This surely needs to be added. ] (]) 07:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Found here | |||
:I thought so too. But remembering the Last Poets from its original release, having observed it grow into a trivialized meme in bourgeois culture, ... . Also don't see the point of showing the Film Forum marquee with nothing on it related to this. ] (]) 08:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
X-Ray of a Lie. It exists to debunk Revolution, I was initially perplexed since I saw Revolution after "Claves de una Masacre", and could clearly see that it was NOT 1:00 or 1:30 the first clue was that the Chavistas were taking cover and were not in the middle, those that were were in prone position, there was also a dead body in still 2, and there was clear shooting going on, that said they did contradict themselves on the video a few minutes later saying it happened in 5:30 according to their calculations (sun dial, wich is not that accurate specially if they are meassuring personal shadow angles and the blood stain color of a dead occured at 4:40pm). The 2nd part was added later, when they were aware of the mistake they made in the original documentary. That's why this 2nd version begins at 33:12 with "Grabado posteriormente al foro" (recorded after the forum) and it corrects the previous version without removing anything from from the original documentary. Additionally it reveals another manipulation made by "Chavez - The Film" : the picture was electronically enlarged to remove the armoured police vehicle the Chavez supporters were shooting at. | |||
::Hi. The Film Forum image is ... well, it's partially decorative, and doesn't add much of note to the article content. However, what it does do is break up the giant wall o' text that the article could easily become (which often puts off readers' getting to the end of large articles like this one), so I'm content to let it stay. In other news, I a very brief note about the origins of the name. All the best, ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 09:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revolution will not be televised. It is a good documentary but would skip the first part unless you are completely new to the subject, when the action starts (after puente Llaguno) inside Miraflores.] 15:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Acknowledgement - Gil Scott Herron "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised".1970 ] (]) 16:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
== The shadow == | |||
::Already done - see above. ] (]) 16:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::There should be some acknowledgement, even if only in a hatnote, that the title is directly taken from a popular protest song, and that song should be linked. There is no substance in the argument that the song is "a trivialized meme in bourgeois culture" such that the film title be presented as entirely original when it is not. -] (]) 18:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
The two screen shots puzzle me. The first one seems to show people on a sidewalk with wavy lines and behind a wall casting a shadow. The second one shows the sidewalk with the wavy lines again, but no wall. Look at the line on the street below. It runs right up to the sidewalk, so there is no wall there. But then, what is is casting the shadow? Since in the tropics shadows can move very fast, especially when cast by a high building, this is very relevant. Of course, this is very easy to check for someone who lives there. Just go to the bridge at that time of year and record at which times such shadows are cast. | |||
:::Hi. In case you missed it, I a note about the origins of the film's name. However, to comment on its significance without a citation to a reliable secondary source would be considered ], which the best articles strive to eliminate. If you can find such a source that comments more directly on this, I'm sure it'd be considered. All the best, ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 19:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Also, I've uploaded a shot that zooms out a bit more, with thick crowds huddling together at both sides of the bridge. If this was shot earlier, before the shooting started, then what are they hiding from? ] 19:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::It seems that on the one hand you are asking for a source, while on the other you yourself added a footnote with such a source. If the source is good enough for a footnote it should be good enough for a hatnote. Placing too high a bar for entry seems sort of like claiming that the title of the film, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, does not owe its origin to the song The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, when the connection is plain. -] (]) 21:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::: No, he is asking for a citation that the film was named after or inspired by the name of the poem. We don't seem to have that. It appears that what you want is a dab link to other uses of the term; I have added that correctly. ] (]) 21:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::And I disagree even with the hatnote. The advice of ] is that for an article such as this, a hatnote is unsuitable, because the article title is already disambiguated. But it's a small issue, and if I'm honest I don't especially care one way or the other. :-) ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 22:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::: Ah, I see-- I wasn't aware of NAMB. In that case, I agree we don't need it, but then having it doesn't seem to do much harm either. ] (]) 22:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
On I agree, those are unuseful overlinking, and I would have removed it myself, but don't want to pass 3RR. ] (]) 22:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:That is the problem in X-ray of a lie they show TWO different times, one 1:30 and the other 5:30 the skeptic in me says that this is typical of the venezuelan oposition they think that the more critiscism they fling the more likely they are able to convince, even if they contradict themselves. The second shot definitely happens after the shootings as in the Revolution wnbt there are clearly people shooting. Try watching puente Llaguno documentary (part 4 I believe) they show a similar shot but from a handycam and synchronize it with the movement of the people to the exact time of the shootings, the crowds are huddled as well away from the middle.] 01:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== External links modified == | |||
The whole "shadow" thing in ''X-ray of a lie'' is pure rubbish. First of all, as was rightly noticed by one reviewer already, they first claim (pay particular attention to the ridiculous "experiment" with the battery, where the alleged shadow at 1.30 is practicaly ''only towards west, only shorter'' (notice that at that time the angle of the shadow is, of course, much bigger then 15 degrees from the west-east axis, as the shadows should point in north-east direction, but with a much bigger angle), very "scientific" indeed), and then they claim for the frames '''showing exactly the same position of shadows''' to be taken at 5.30. The only thing true here, as is perfectly clear and undeniably proven by comparing the frames for the shadows '''thrown by the same objects''' (take notice that Schalk contrives his fraud by comparing a shadow of one object in the first frame with the shadow '''of an another object''' in the second frame, a clever trick as he does the comparison fast and moves on swiftly, it took me at least four viewings to notice the scam at all) is that the second frame must have been taken '''shortly after''' the first (taken the date and the geographical position of Caracas, most probably around half an hour). The whole 1.30pm presentation is therefore vulgar charlatanism posing as "scientific proof". | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
:Yaah I am thinking of making a timeline, the two shots are no more than 30 min apart, and they attack the documentary for being dishonest. ] 23:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
I have just modified 2 external links 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: | |||
BTW, if there were anti-Chavez protesters under that bridge at the time of the shooting, why don't they show them in their movie? No footing available? How is that possible?'''Because nobody of anti-Chavez protesters passing through the street at the time brought a camera with them to film the event?''' Yeah, right. ''X-ray of a lie'' is nothing more then a shamless hoax. | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511024649/http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0345%2Choberman2%2C48373%2C20.html to http://www1.villagevoice.com/film/0345%2Choberman2%2C48373%2C20.html | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090727063727/http://www.rte.ie/about/awards/page1176372.html to http://www.rte.ie/about/awards/page1176372.html | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
== Given that we are actually watching the documentaries as opposed to reading an article == | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
How would one interpret a visual cue that is not OR? I believe we should only state what the narrator states as if it were audio.] 02:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 20:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Venezuela Bolivariana: People and Struggle of the Fourth World War == | |||
== External links modified == | |||
Any of you who dispute that the police (who were anti Chavez) fired at the protesters then you clearly haven’t seen the documentary "Venezuela Bolivariana: People and Struggle of the Fourth World War". It is freely available here: http://www.archive.org/details/Venezuela_Bolivariana_VEN_2004 | |||
alternatively you can watch it online here: | |||
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-1797179074001054188&hl=en-GB | |||
fast forward to 54:00. | |||
at 54:22 it shows that a police water cannon cleared the street below the bridge at 3:54pm | |||
at 54:29 it shows people running away from the police at 4:00pm. This also shows the protesters up on the bridge. in the background. | |||
at 55:57, there is a photo of the police about to start shooting at the protesters on the bridge. | |||
at 56:03 it shows footage from the bridge of the police under the bridge. | |||
at 56:29, it shows a Pro Chavez protester being shot in the head from a long distance, the time on the hand held camera is 4:20pm. However this is not on the bridge. | |||
This basically shows that the police were shooting at the pro Chavez protesters. | |||
It also shows footage from under the bridge, behind the police. | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
So yes there were people under the bridge, running away from the police water cannon and tear gas. You can see that when people under the bridge are running away from the police, those on top of the bridge are looking down, they are not firing, or ducking. Then the police open fire on the Chavez protesters on the bridge. Then the protesters fire back. | |||
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: | |||
X-Ray of a lie is a lie. But generally people will believe what they WANT to believe, rather than the truth (hence why you get UFO sightings, and people assume that they are aliens rather than rational explanations). This can be argued on both sides. Personally I believe that the protesters were the victims here, not the police. Chavez would hardly order the police to fire on the protesters that are supporting him. Yes he lost control of the police, however this was a coup, and the police were under the control of the coup leaders. | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710184552/http://caracas.eluniversal.com/2004/07/31/imp_til_art_31257A.shtml to http://caracas.eluniversal.com/2004/07/31/imp_til_art_31257A.shtml | |||
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.idfa.nl/nl/webzine/archief/2007/interviews2007/maziar-bahari-over-zijn-top-10.aspx | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
:The police were in control of Alfredo Peña, the metropolitan mayor at the time and a political opponent. ] 12:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
==The article's lack of content== | |||
Controversy aside, I came to this article to refresh my memory on the content of the film itself. Even if the film is inaccurate, the first priority should be to discuss that content, and the discussions of accuracy should come later. I think readers would appreciate if someone who has seen the movie more than once would fill in the necessary details and worry about the criticism afterward. | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 19:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
] 13:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
== External links modified == | |||
:Could point. Technically, a portrayal of the content should be the first priority of the article. It is after all an encyclopaedic article and the purpose of such a resource is to provide information on the subject (in this case the film), NOT to spend the vast majority of the article discussing the films legitimacy, which should really be discussed elsewhere (an internet forum, a politics website, a movie mistakes website, etc.). I guess this is one of the current major flaws of Misplaced Pages though, too many people are more interested in pushing their point of view on others rather than informing as a more traditional encyclopaedia would aim to do. Misplaced Pages is not an essay website and it is not movie-mistakes.com. Sadly I very much doubt the article will be refocused for the reasons I have given. ] 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
::On this note I made an edit to the caption of the picture of Lucas Rincón announcing Chávez's resignation on TV. It said "It is argued that this event was not shown in the documentary". I removed the "It is argued" as that is not a point for argument. If you've watched the documentary (which I have), you know that that speach or any reference to it was completely ommited from the documentary. ] 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
I have just modified 2 external links 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: | |||
== Can someone improve the shadows section? == | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002131209/http://www.irishfilmboard.ie/irish_film_industry/news/IFB_BACKED_PROJECTS_RECEIVE_OVER_70_IFTA_NOMINATIONS/121 to http://www.irishfilmboard.ie/irish_film_industry/news/IFB_BACKED_PROJECTS_RECEIVE_OVER_70_IFTA_NOMINATIONS/121 | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807131750/http://www.irishfilmboard.ie/awards/?year=2003&next=1 to http://www.irishfilmboard.ie/awards/?year=2003&next=1 | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
I can't make out with certainty what either side is claiming about the shadows on the bridge. What does each documentary claim, and what should I be looking at in Frames 1 and 2? (Please answer by improving that section of the article, not by replying here.) ] 13:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
:For example, in Frame 2, I can't see the wall that is casting the shadow - maybe just because the picture quality is poor. And the picture claims to show a shadow which is cast wider than the wavey white road markings, but the other shadows in the picture are cast from right to left and this width is measured from top to bottom. Can someone please fix the article to explain what I should be looking for? ] 13:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 23:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:: The problem is that WP editors cannot do original research; we can only repeat "x-ray" arguments which are very difficult to understand. I think "x-ray"is just a hoax. --] 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
::: I can try to explain: the Irish documentary says it happened at H-hour (during the march) in order to discredit this X-ray initially claims it happened on (H-hour - 4) based on one shadow, but a little while later claim it happened (H-hour + :30 mins) based on another shadow. We can only post what they say even if it is more misleading than not knowing their claims at all.] 21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::: Somebody who wrote this article did not understand the shadows part of the "X-ray" documentary at all; it never spoke about the railing shadow, but about the surrounding buildings' shadow instead. I corrected that information on the article. ] 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::As I understood in the X-Ray documentary, the originally claimed, the shooting at Llaguno bridge happened at 1:30 around, because they interpreted one shdow as a shadow of a building, wich it wasn't, but of the crowd. So afterwards they introduced a 2nd explanation (i wonder, why they didn't remove the wrong part, maybe to say, that they were wrong, but it's part of the original). This 2nd said, it happened at 5:30 around, according to a blood stain and the shadow length taken from the people there. And to think, it's a hoax only because they are wrong about one thing (everyone makes errors, no?), it's a bit harsh. Especially because "the revolution will not be televised" has more to offer than this one part, and X-Ray proofed, that they were lying in more parts than this one. Example : The media were quiet afterwards. Check the archive of "El Universal", wich is full of critics of Chavez, but they wrote at 12.4.2002 that Carmona dissolved the AN and it's wrong... and and and...--] 22:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I've re-organised that whole section. I haven't changed any of the information - I couldn't, I haven't seen X-Ray or Puente. What I did was I put the related information together. So rather than one paragraph saying X-Ray said it happened at 1:00, and another paragraph saying X-Ray said it happened at 5:30, I made one paragraph saying that X-Ray said it happened at either 1:00 or 5:30, and that they have evidence which proves each claim. ] 20:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
::What are these red lines in the frames supposed to proof? The first measures the shadow from the ''bottom'' of the railing to the edge of the shadow, the second one from the ''top''. Am I missing a point here or are we measuring with two different standards? <span style="background:#FFEE91">]</span> 13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
::: Further, who added the red lines? Obviously, they do not come from "The Revolution...". Are these snapshots from other film or were they altered by an editor to advance a position? ] (]) 19:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Everything but the video? == | |||
This article discusses awards, criticisms, counter-criticisms, and reception, but I just realised that it does not mention the content of the documentary :-) If anyone has the time, please help. ] 12:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Removal of "needs infobox" tag == | |||
This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. | |||
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. ] 17:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
== No original research == | |||
The subsection "Documentaries, for and against" is 100% original research. In my opinion, it is used as an excuse to promote two ] films, one contradicting "The Revolution..." theses and another supporting them. First of all a proof of notability of these films is needed, otherwise they must be considered fringe views that do not deserve a place in WP. After that, their support or criticism must be supported by ], otherwise, it would be ] and therefore not allowed per Misplaced Pages core content policies. Please do not restore this material unless you can provide reliable sources to support it. ] (]) 11:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
:The secondary reliable sources are the documentaries themselves. They are not fringe views, both cause quite a stir, among many other things, one must remember that a planned screening of the film was canceled by the organizers of the Amnesty International Film Festival given the arguments against the film. http://www.democracynow.org/2003/11/6/the_revolution_will_not_be_televised. Please do not remove content that provides key information about the reception of the film. This sections are common in film pages.] (]) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
:: The documentaries are not secondary but primary sources. Working directly with primary sources poses 2 problems: 1) The notability of the sources has not been established, it must be proven that they "provide key information about the reception of the film" and 2) Interpreting or synthesising a source is not allowed per ]. The solution for both problems is finding ] commenting on the films. Otherwise, the unsourced material should be deleted, I don't think that "this sections are common in film pages" is an excuse for keeping unsourced material in violation of wikipedia core policies. ] (]) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::The docs were made and exist only because "The revolution" was made. The interest of a writer must be to contribute, expand and enrich articles, as they are done in the rest of wikipedia, not to censor material that ones does not agree with. ] (]) 07:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::One more thing. This is from the Style Guide of the WikiProject Film with respect to the content that should be included with respect to the reception of Documentaries. "Documentaries present a special case, as they present themselves as recounters of fact. Therefore ''criticism of content ought to be included'' if it is presented with reasonable documentation and if ''there is evidence of public awareness of the controversy''. Responses to such criticism should likewise be presented on the same basis. ''The existence of a public controversy ought to be acknowledged'' whatever can be said about it; the publicity is by nature citable, and omission creates the false impression that the subject matter is uncontroversial." . As I said before, our effort, as writers must be to expand the content.] (]) 07:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::You said ''The interest of a writer must be to contribute, expand and enrich articles, as they are done in the rest of wikipedia, not to censor material that ones does not agree with''. This would be true if we were talking about notable information supported by secondary reliable sources. I am sure that WikiProject Film recommendation that criticism of content ought to be included is not intended to supersede ]. There would be no problem if you added criticism supported by secondary reliable sources which may include or not references to "X-Ray". The problem is that "X-ray" is a non-notable film which received very little attention. By the way, I'm also deleting material based on "Puente Llaguno" which actually supports "The Revolution" points, my intention is not to suppress criticism, the only thing I ask is that criticism and praise be supported by reliable sources and not by a couple of non-notable documentaries. Both "X-Ray" and "Puente Llaguno" are self-published material and cannot be used to make claims about third parties, ]. ] (]) 11:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Per the request for ] by ] - My opinion is that the section ] is ] based on primary sources (i.e. the documentaries concerned). I'd advise ] to locate secondary ] to support the section. Thanks, ] ] 23:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
: Also, Caracas1830, I don't appreciate my edits being labeled as "vandalism". Please check ]. In fact, according to ] "''Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.''" ] (]) 01:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
===Red lines in images=== | |||
Thanks for adding the sources, Caracas1830. Now, I'd like to discuss the red lines added to the images. In both cases you said "a line was added". Would you please be more specific and tell us who added the lines? ] (]) 11:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
===El Nacional article=== | |||
Caracas1830, you sourced the sentence ''"A documentary made by Venezuelan TV producers and engineers Thaelman Urgelles and Wolfgang Schalk, called "X-Ray of a Lie", claimed that The Revolution Will Not Be Televised was inaccurate and dishonest"'' using an article from Alexis Correia. Are you sure the article mentions "X-ray"? I will go to the library on Monday to check but at first sight there is something that doesn't fit: The article is from October 2003 while, according to imdb, "X-Ray" is from 2004. ] (]) 19:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
==POV== | |||
Added POV tag to the reception section, which seems overlong and uses original research in an attempt to make a political point. ] (]) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
: Would you please be more specific? What parts of the section you consider POV? There are lots of sources so I don't understand why you say there is POV/OR? ] (]) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:The whole section regarding Urgelles and Schalk - first of all it is badly written, almost unreadable in that big chunk of a paragraph. Secondly, rather than summarizing the concerns raised by the duo, it seems to be a systematic critique of the documentary, which seems out of place in a Misplaced Pages article. | |||
You can remove the tag if you like - maybe it's not so much POV that I was questioning, but rather whether that paragraph meets wikipedia guidelines. ] (]) 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:: Not really original research IMO, but ] given to Schalk opinion so I won't remove the POV tag (perhaps it could be replaced with an "unbalanced" tag). I agree Schalk's concerns should be sumarized as in the present version it is taking as much space as a lot of multiple independent reviews. ] (]) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
I sumarized the paragraph, here's the previous version: | |||
<blockquote> | |||
In 2003 Venezuelan TV producers and engineers Thaelman Urgelles and Wolfgang Schalk, claimed that the film ''The Revolution Will Not Be Televised'' was "a flagrant violation of the ethic codes that they learned as alumni of TV production and direction from the BBC in London"<ref>http://www.eluniversal.com/2003/10/03/cul_art_03208I.shtml</ref> and that the film is "a work of propaganda"<ref name="nacional20031003"/>. What they considered was the worst manipulation was made with the images showing the Baralt Avenue without any people and the Venevisión video showing the shooters of Puente Llaguno filmed by Luis Alfonso Fernández.<ref name="nacional20031003"/>"When we examined the angle of the sun we discovered that the images from the Baralt Avenue were filmed at 1:00 pm while the images from Venevisión were filmed after 4:00 pm but were edited as if they happen simultaneously."<ref name="nacional20031003"/> They compared this kind unethical behavior with the case of ].<ref name="nacional20031003"/>. Urgelles and Schalk were also concerned that the some scenes of the people in front of the Presidential Palace on the morning of April 11th were from another gathering which happen another day in another city of Venezuela.<ref name="ElUniversal20031116">http://www.eluniversal.com/2003/11/16/apo_art_16264B.shtml</ref>. Urgelles and Schalk considered that the film makers also ignored Chávez's "chain" between 3:45 and 5:27 pm, happening while 21 people were killed and 150 were injured around the Presidential Palace. They explained that it was then that the private channels decided to split the screen into two and show the events and then the government shut down their signal.<ref name="ElUniversal20031116"/> Urgelles and Schalk were concerned that the images of tanks on April 12 moving to the Miraflores palace were not intended to attack Chávez, but those tanks were following Chávez's own order to attack the opposition march.<ref name="ElUniversal20031116"/> Also Urgelles and Schalk considered that the film makers misrepresent the multiethnic composition of Venezuela in order to give the idea that Chávez followers are of dark skin and the opposition is white and wealthy.<ref name="ElUniversal20031116"/> | |||
</blockquote> | |||
] (]) 14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
=== More on POV: Brian Nelson, ''The Silence and the Scorpion'' === | |||
For a partial listing of items presented incompletely here, see ], in particular, ]. ] (]) 14:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:This article is about a documentary. If you want the tag to stay, you need to be specific. ] (]) 17:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: I have been specific; I suggest you don't remove the tag :) See the quotes in the attached, linked article. ] (]) 17:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Do the sources -- or quotes -- mention the documentary by name? ] (]) 17:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::: Let's not be obtuse; is there another documentary fitting that description? At any rate, get the book mentioned by the sources. It will surely provide plenty of material for expanding this article and explaining the many "manipulations" in the "documentary". ] (]) 18:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::: "In this enterprise, Mr Chavez was abetted by foreign admirers, including the Irish makers of an award-winning documentary on the coup which, Mr Nelson finds, contains 'many manipulations'. ... ''The Silence and the Scorpion: The Coup Against Chavez and the Making of Modern Venezuela.'' By Brian A. Nelson. Nation Books; 355 pages; $26.95 | |||
::::: http://www.amazon.com/Silence-Scorpion-Against-Chavez-Venezuela/dp/1568584180/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266933761&sr=8-1 ] (]) 18:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::The article in ''The Economist'' is behind a subscription wall, hence my general questioning -- does it mention the film by name and, if the answer is "Yes", what specific material would you like to see added. Drive-by tagging is not helpful. The Critical reception section already contains opposing viewpoints and references therefore I see zero justification for the tag. ] (]) 20:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::: I have given you (twice now) sufficient quotes from the article to avoid copyvio, and to indicate you should get the book, at minimum, to expand and neutralize the article. Please take care with claims of "drive-by tagging"; this article has long been incomplete, biased and non-neutral. ] (]) 20:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: Also, see for a broader answer on the source from DGG, an experienced editor and librarian. ] (]) 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::You have given me a single quote from a book review. Not helpful. You suggest I purchase the book to "neutralize th article" and remove the tag. Again, not helpful. Merely saying the article is "incomplete, biased and non-neutral", without explaining why this article is "incomplete, biased and non-neutral", is circular. If there is something in this book that you feel belongs on this page, I suggest you pinpoint it, otherwise tagging is meaningless. ] (]) 21:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::: I haven't pointed you to a significant viewpoint that is not given due weight in this article; that a trip to a library or bookstore is needed to correct that does not negate the POV. ] (]) 21:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::The article already describes a number of different viewpoints (" brilliant piece of journalism" to " work of propaganda"). There is no NPOV issue at the present time. But if you believe this article can be improved by the inclusion of an additional viewpoint, feel free to proceed and add the material yourself. Pointing to a book in a library and concluding the article is "incomplete" and thus "non-neutral" is not a legitimate cause for tagging the page. The article isn't going anywhere. It will still be here when you get back! For this reason I am removing the tag. ] (]) 22:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::It is very well established that this film is a pack of lies. See for example this article or this video: and judge by yourself <br />] (]) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::]'s blog is not a ]. Not everything he says in the link you give is necessarily wrong (the film certainly has flaws), but skimming it I can see a number of claims about the events which are contradicted by better sources. And that points up part of the problem: because there is so much disagreement on what actually happened, this colours people's opinion of this documentary. I'd suggest leaving this article for now and concentrating on the 2002 coup article. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::: Agree. Y'all have got to stop referring to Alekboyd's blog, because doing so merely fills up talk pages unnecessarily (see ). And, there are bigger problems elsewhere; once we uncover all the missing sources (and I'm still working on that), smaller articles can be addressed via those reliable sources. And "pack of lies" is not the sort of terminology that advances discussion here; there is surely some truth in this documentary. In the meantime, many of us need to get our hands on that book: ]-- the POV tag should stand until the article reflects all viewpoints. ] (]) 23:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::I don't see the POV tag as really necessary; there are two paragraphs on criticism of the documentary, and if there are specific points to add there, that should be done, but having a POV tag doesn't particularly help. If at some point there's a dispute about how much weight to give different views, then fine; but right now, the article reflects the reliable sources we have. I suspect Nelson has more to say about the events than the documentary per se, and I'm really wary of unnecessary duplication of the 2002 coup article. In any case, if Nelson's version of events differs from the film's, that's not canonical, since we know there are two versions, and the article already reflects that (though perhaps the lead could give more of a sense of that). ] <sup>]</sup> 23:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::: There's a whole lot of fluff in this article. Short of getting the book, if we reduce the article to something more reliable, clean it up, and add the quote from The Economist (and we can find others), I think we could then remove the POV tag, pending a broader rewrite from the book. But we're not there in the current version (and I notice none of the others talking here have edited in the new content :). ] (]) 23:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::''"he POV tag should stand until the article reflects all viewpoints.''" Impossible. No article will ever reflect all viewpoints. There will always be a book germane to the subject sitting on a library shelf, gathering dust. You cannot pick one out seemingly without knowing exactly what is written in advance, complaining 'Do not remove the tag until someone fetches X from the library', especially when the article today reflects both positive and negative commentary. 'I think Chavez is a dictator and I'm pretty sure this documentary is crap!' is not a valid reason to tag the article. ] (]) 00:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Wikispan, if you continue to edit war a POV tag, without making a single edit to the article, you are likely to call admin attention to your edit warring (see ] as well as ]). I have provided you clearly sourced material that has not been added. The article needs a rewrite to downplay the one-sided story, and add to the article and the lead the fact that the film has recieved praise as well as criticism and charges of "manipulation". I suggest you actually ''edit'' the article to incorporate these issues before removing a POV tag. The book can be used to expand the article, but ''The Economist'' snips I've given you are enough for now. Once you've done that, the POV tag can be replaced with an expand tag, until one of us gets the book. ] (]) 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:You want to include "snips" of a critical review published by ''The Economist'' for a book you have not read, and you do not possess, which leads you to understand, from a ''single line'' of text, that the author has something unpleasant to say about the makers of this documentary--but you are unable to describe exactly because the reviewer provides zero detail--and until someone comes into possession of the aforementioned book, reads and confirms your suspicion that ''The Revolution Will Not Be Televised'' is a work of fiction, the tag must remain on this page? I will not stand back and allow you to hold this page hostage. Please in your very next response provide specific passages and page numbers from said book. The unattributed review in ''The Economist'' mentions this documentary only fleetingly (''"Mr Nelson finds contains 'many manipulations'"'') therefore, absent the book, it is debatable whether this "snip" is worth adding at all. Kindly provide specifics. ] (]) 22:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Expand == | |||
Sources from Google scholar which may be used for article expansion: | |||
* {{cite journal |title= Framing the Revolution: Circulation and Meaning of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised |author= Schiller, Naomi | doi= 10.1080/15205430903237832 |journal = | |||
Mass Communication and Society |volume= 12 |issue= 4 |date= October 2009 | pages= 478–502}} | |||
* {{cite book |title= VENEZUELA A Decade Under Chavez Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela |publisher= ] |author= Holland, Alisha |year= 2008}} | |||
* {{cite book |title = The Revolutionary Has No Clothes: Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian Farce |author = Clark, AC | year= 2009 |publisher = Encounter Books}} | |||
* {{cite book |title= The Silence and the Scorpion: The Coup Against Chavez and the Making of Modern Venezuela |author=Nelson, Brian |publisher= Nation Books |year= 2009 |isbn= 1568584180}} | |||
Also, details normally included in Film articles (production costs, timing, development, etc) are missing. | |||
] (]) 15:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
== SandyGeorgia the only one allowed to change this page? == | |||
hello, I thought anyone could edit but it is not true? This belongs to SandyGeorgia? ] (]) 18:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Why was the review by Roger Ebert changed to leave out his true impressions of the film in this review? | |||
<blockquote>It is, of course, impossible to prove that the coup was sponsored by the CIA or any other U.S. agency. But what was the White House thinking when it welcomed two antigovernment leaders who soon after were instrumental in the coup?</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote>Note:The last words in George Orwell's notebook were: "At the age 50, every man has the face he deserves." Although it is ourtageously unfiar and indefensibly subjective of me, I cannot prevent myself from observing that Chavez and his cabinet have open, friendly faces, quick to smile, and that the faces of his opponents are closed, shifty, hardened.</blockquote> | |||
Not to say SandyGeorgia should put these quotes in, but she should convey that Roger Ebert had a favorable impression. | |||
] (]) 19:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
: The article was not "changed to leave out" anything; I added one small quote to balance your small quote. I also don't think adding the extended quote improves the article, since the full review is available online (I do tend towards larger quotes from sources that aren't available online, so that all readers can see exactly what was said.) ] (]) 19:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: You are looking only at the politics of the film. You are not recognizing the film's positive aspects, even from a filmography point of view. It was a powerful film experience, for many people, like Roger Ebert. You want to strip that part of the film out and only look at it as propoganda. You are not evaluating it as a film, aside the your political views of its "message". ] (]) 19:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 11:30, 14 February 2024
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film) 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 March 18, 2011. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This was a Collaboration of the Month of WikiProject Venezuela, for March 2010. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Misplaced Pages article. |
Archives |
Source
- Wayne, Mike; O'Neill, Deirdre (2011). "Form, Politics and Culture: A Case Study of The Take, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised and Listen to Venezuela". In Kapur, Jyotsna; Wagner, Keith B (eds.). Neoliberalism and Global Cinema: Capital, Culture, and Marxist Critique. Routledge Advances in Film Studies. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-88905-6.
Found a possible source to use. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I may be wrong. This page's "Contents" tab only has a chapter mentioning Listen to Venezuela. I found the above source through WorldCat.org, so it's possible it was outdated. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think you might be right; the chapter in question (a reproduction of an article from Film International) only namechecks Revolution once. It may be that the editors decided not to include whatever it was going to be, or a simple mistake, but I'll try to look further. Steve 22:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations
Congrats to the editors who got this worked up to FA (and AOTD) status. I was living in Venezuela during the coup and, long ago, contributed to some of the early articles dealing with it -- including this one. Nice to see where this ended up. Great work. 98.162.244.83 (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
FASCIST PROPAGANDA!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.220.126 (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- True, it's a shame Misplaced Pages's bias pushing this kind of propaganda of Hugo Chavez and his totalitarian regimen in their first page. Congratulations to those editors responsible, they are making major advances to make Misplaced Pages another feud for the left-wing sectarianism. 81.60.184.222 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. If you took the time to read the article, you'll find—I hope—that it presents only solidly-cited information about this film's production, without offering support to Chavez; indeed, large parts of the article feature criticism of the filmmakers (while at the same time quite rightly presenting their rebuttals to the charges levelled against them). Please don't take the appearance of an article about a subject as an endorsement of it; by that measure, would you take Adolf Hitler's appearance on the main page as an endorsement of Nazism? Yes, I went there. Steve 22:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Film title
Correct me if I'm wrong (it's a long article!) but I don't see any links to the poem and 1970 recording by Gil Scott-Heron - article here - from which the film took its title. This surely needs to be added. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I thought so too. But remembering the Last Poets from its original release, having observed it grow into a trivialized meme in bourgeois culture, ... . Also don't see the point of showing the Film Forum marquee with nothing on it related to this. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. The Film Forum image is ... well, it's partially decorative, and doesn't add much of note to the article content. However, what it does do is break up the giant wall o' text that the article could easily become (which often puts off readers' getting to the end of large articles like this one), so I'm content to let it stay. In other news, I added a very brief note about the origins of the name. All the best, Steve 09:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Acknowledgement - Gil Scott Herron "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised".1970 ArnoldRLee (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Already done - see above. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- There should be some acknowledgement, even if only in a hatnote, that the title is directly taken from a popular protest song, and that song should be linked. There is no substance in the argument that the song is "a trivialized meme in bourgeois culture" such that the film title be presented as entirely original when it is not. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. In case you missed it, I added a note about the origins of the film's name. However, to comment on its significance without a citation to a reliable secondary source would be considered original research, which the best articles strive to eliminate. If you can find such a source that comments more directly on this, I'm sure it'd be considered. All the best, Steve 19:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that on the one hand you are asking for a source, while on the other you yourself added a footnote with such a source. If the source is good enough for a footnote it should be good enough for a hatnote. Placing too high a bar for entry seems sort of like claiming that the title of the film, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, does not owe its origin to the song The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, when the connection is plain. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, he is asking for a citation that the film was named after or inspired by the name of the poem. We don't seem to have that. It appears that what you want is a dab link to other uses of the term; I have added that correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- And I disagree even with the hatnote. The advice of WP:NAMB is that for an article such as this, a hatnote is unsuitable, because the article title is already disambiguated. But it's a small issue, and if I'm honest I don't especially care one way or the other. :-) Steve 22:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see-- I wasn't aware of NAMB. In that case, I agree we don't need it, but then having it doesn't seem to do much harm either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- And I disagree even with the hatnote. The advice of WP:NAMB is that for an article such as this, a hatnote is unsuitable, because the article title is already disambiguated. But it's a small issue, and if I'm honest I don't especially care one way or the other. :-) Steve 22:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, he is asking for a citation that the film was named after or inspired by the name of the poem. We don't seem to have that. It appears that what you want is a dab link to other uses of the term; I have added that correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that on the one hand you are asking for a source, while on the other you yourself added a footnote with such a source. If the source is good enough for a footnote it should be good enough for a hatnote. Placing too high a bar for entry seems sort of like claiming that the title of the film, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, does not owe its origin to the song The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, when the connection is plain. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. In case you missed it, I added a note about the origins of the film's name. However, to comment on its significance without a citation to a reliable secondary source would be considered original research, which the best articles strive to eliminate. If you can find such a source that comments more directly on this, I'm sure it'd be considered. All the best, Steve 19:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
On this edit, I agree, those are unuseful overlinking, and I would have removed it myself, but don't want to pass 3RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film). 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/20080511024649/http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0345%2Choberman2%2C48373%2C20.html to http://www1.villagevoice.com/film/0345%2Choberman2%2C48373%2C20.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090727063727/http://www.rte.ie/about/awards/page1176372.html to http://www.rte.ie/about/awards/page1176372.html
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) 20:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film). 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/20110710184552/http://caracas.eluniversal.com/2004/07/31/imp_til_art_31257A.shtml to http://caracas.eluniversal.com/2004/07/31/imp_til_art_31257A.shtml
- Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.idfa.nl/nl/webzine/archief/2007/interviews2007/maziar-bahari-over-zijn-top-10.aspx
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) 19:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film). 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/20111002131209/http://www.irishfilmboard.ie/irish_film_industry/news/IFB_BACKED_PROJECTS_RECEIVE_OVER_70_IFTA_NOMINATIONS/121 to http://www.irishfilmboard.ie/irish_film_industry/news/IFB_BACKED_PROJECTS_RECEIVE_OVER_70_IFTA_NOMINATIONS/121
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807131750/http://www.irishfilmboard.ie/awards/?year=2003&next=1 to http://www.irishfilmboard.ie/awards/?year=2003&next=1
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) 23:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- FA-Class Venezuela articles
- Mid-importance Venezuela articles
- Venezuela articles
- FA-Class film articles
- FA-Class Documentary films articles
- Documentary films task force articles
- Core film articles supported by the documentary films task force
- FA-Class core film articles
- WikiProject Film core articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- FA-Class Ireland articles
- Mid-importance Ireland articles
- FA-Class Ireland articles of Mid-importance
- All WikiProject Ireland pages