Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:45, 21 January 2007

Film Stub‑class

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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Thanks for a well researched and meticulously sourced article. I will add some more material to provide some needed context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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. Smee 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

No, I do not have URLs of free online sources. I use several online databases that require payment.

1. 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".
2. I have moved the award to the appropriate section rather than the lead, as done with many other award-winning documentaries.
3. 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I will work on getting the citation date. I will restore the Awards section. This is common for most films articles. Smee 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

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? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. I will try. Smee 20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Can you explain why you removed the text and described my edits as "POV pushing", when the fact is that Abbie Hoffman was one of the Chicago Seven and notable because of that? I would also appreciate that rather than making such opinions in edit summaries, you address your concerns in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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 Abbie Hoffman 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. Smee 21:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

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. Smee 21:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

This is a very interesting conversation. You believe that it is denigrating to say about Hoffman that he was a member of the Chicago Seven. 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 WP:THIRD opinion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It reminds me of another dispute at Charismatic authority 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). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. Smee 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I like your compromise about the Abbie Hoffman context for the moment. Smee 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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... Smee 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We shall see. Smee 02:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Film?

Jossi (talk · contribs)

How does a TV documentary that was shot in video tape using Portapak, and shown in PBS , suddenly becames a film? What sources describe the TV show as a film? The award, for example, was given for Broadcast 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 WP:THIRD ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Smeelgova (talk · contribs)

...

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.

I understand where user:Jossi is coming from in that the term "film" tends to connote a feature-length production; however, TV documentary redirects to Documentary film, 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. Flakeloaf 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 Lord_of_the_Universe_(documentary)#_note-video_history_project ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Op-eds

As far as I know, op-eds are not reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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? Flakeloaf 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 documentary film, rather than a TV documentary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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"

1. MediaRights Listed in Directory "film", note, states "rate this film", and "film description..."
2. Williams. Bob, "On the Air," New York Post, February 25, 1974 - refers to it as "deplorable film", and yet a film, nonetheless...
3. Megan Williams, producer of the film, referred to as a independent documentary film producer, and not an "independent TV Documentary producer"... hrm...
4. Video History Project, quoting: "If you take Top Value's product, and look at it very objectively, it looks like documentary film."

• Will add more momentarily... Smee 06:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Please stay as close to the source as possible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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?) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

independent documentary film producer does not make this a film, does it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the contested "film" categories as these are not supported by the sources. Added Category:Television_documentaries instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. Smee 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. Smee 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". Smee 07:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Where does the third opinion said to keep the film categories? We kept documentary film in the lead as TV documentary 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. Smee 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. Smee 07:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Should I make a list in which sources describes this production as a TV program, or TV documentary? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Stub-Class film articles
• WikiProject Film articles