Talk:The Birth of a Nation/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NAACP success against film

The first section says that the NAACP was unsuccessful in banning/censoring the film. However, I've heard from some sources that the NAACP did limit the film's release, even if they didn't ban it. Just FYI. 50.5.106.139 (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Double revert by Matz44 and Ewulp

@Ewulp: I'd like to know your reasoning for your original edit and why you think that Wilson 'tried to fire' as many black civil servants instead of trying them in the court sense of the word. Matz44 the Angry Asian 01:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

See reliable sources (e.g., here or here). Ewulp (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting me on this, I made the presumption that you were just correcting something you thought had been missed by whoever included it in first. Sorry for wasting your time. Matz44 the Angry Asian 05:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Birth of a Nation. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Birth of a Nation. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Birth of a Nation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 00:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. I have already read through it and I will admit I am a little in awe; you have done excellent work here, MagicatthemovieS, and I think this article will pass review very quickly. I will read through it a few more times in the coming days and try to find any problems that might need to be pointed out. Once again, excellent work! --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Correction: After checking the edit history, I see that much of the structure of the article was already here before you came, but, nonetheless, I congratulate you on your improvements! --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Katolophyromai: Are there any changes you would like me to make to this article? Also, you may want to mention Maya (mother of the Buddha) in your discussion of the virgin birth in the Jesus in comparitive mythology article.--MagicatthemovieS
@MagicatthemovieS: I am still thinking about the changes. I made a few minor adjustments to paragraph layout. I already knew about Maya from my work on the article Miraculous birth and I was planning on adding mention of her, but I had not yet gotten around to it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Katolophyromai: The Jesus in comparitive mythology article is coming along nicely. Just as a reminder, GA reviews are supposed to last up to 7 days, and it has been 7 days since this review began. Thanks again for your help!--MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I apologize; I was meaning to pass this a few days ago, but I have not really had much time because I have been very busy and I was trying to think of criticisms to have you address first. I do not think I can really find any at the moment, so I will just go ahead and pass this. I think it meets all the criteria. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments

2d. One website came up in the copyvio search as a certain match, but I checked the site and the website very obviously copied the article from Wikipedia, so no worries there. A few others came up, but those were only because of an extended quote. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Images

@MagicatthemovieS: I appreciate the effort you are putting into this article, and I don't want to come across as ungracious, but will you please use images judiciously. The article now has a dozen images plus a video embedded and it really does not need any more images, unless they are essential to the article. While the article may look great on your display the article will be viewed on a whole range of resolutions. All articles should be viewable on a 1024 pixel display per WP:RESOL, but the most popular resolutions are 1366 pixels for laptops and 1920 pixels for desktop PCs, so the article should look well designed at these resolutions. My advice is to check the layout in a resolution simulator: http://www.infobyip.com/testwebsiteresolution.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Birth_of_a_Nation&width=1920&height=1200&in_browser=false. All the best, and keep up the good work. Betty Logan (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Glorifying the KKK

David Eppstein incorporated the phrase "glorifying the foundation of the Ku Klux Klan" into the opening sentence of the article. I have reverted the edit because I believe it violates WP:DUE; I don't dispute the claim but I believe it to be non-defining in terms of summarising the film's subject matter. The formation of the KKK is just one aspect of the plot and I think that promoting the role of the KKK over the other plot elements mischaracterises the film. It would be a bit like saying Gone with the Wind is about the glorification of slavery—which it does do incidentally—but it is tangential to what the film is about. TCM, for example, summarises it as "In this silent film, families from the North and the South fight to survive the Civil War and its aftermath", while Allmovie similarly describes it as "The film tells the story of the Civil War and its aftermath, as seen through the eyes of two families." I actually think the opening paragraph could benefit from a bit more exposition in describing the film, but it needs to be more balanced than this. Betty Logan (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The IMDB summary is "The Stoneman family finds its friendship with the Camerons affected by the Civil War, both fighting in opposite armies. The development of the war in their lives plays through to Lincoln's assassination and the birth of the Ku Klux Klan." You notice that last phrase, "birth of the Ku Klux Klan"? It is inexplicably missing from the lead of our article. It's almost as if someone was embarrassed to include it, and downplayed that little detail that plays a major part in the movie, hiding it farther down in the plot summary. The article should never have passed GA in such a state. It fails criteria 1b and 4. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The IMDB is a user-edited database that is not regarded as a reliable source (see WP:RS/IMDB). As you can see at https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0004972/plotsummary, that synopsis is just one of several. Even so, I actually think that is a fairly balanced summary and would have no problem if that is what you had actually written: the Ku Klux Klan plays an important role in the film, I don't deny that, but the film isn't just about the formation of the KKK. As for the article's rating and I was not even aware that it was under review and I would need to take a closer look at it, but no obvious neutrality issues leap out at me. Betty Logan (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

@MagicatthemovieS and 24.18.128.102: This article has repeatedly popped up on my watchlist simply because you two cannot agree on the infobox image. You have reverted each other five times between you now and there is still no discussion on the talk page. Will the pair of you please hash this out here before this escalates into an edit-war. Personally I don't mind which poster is used, but I would suggest using the original theatrical poster. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This guy who keeps changing it is anonymous and is not using an account. How am I supposed to contact him? Also, don't I get presidence for having an account and having worked on this article for so long? In addition, the Lincoln poster is one of the original ones used to promote the film. I fear that using the Klan poster will make readers focus solely on the film's politics (which are discussed at length in the article) rather than on the film's artistry, which is where its true importance lies. If Griffith's film were racist but not technically revolutionary, it would be forgotten. If the anonymous user in question continues to edit the page without a resolution here, Betty, I suggest we get the article locked so he cannot interfere with it. I would be willing to compromise by using a poster other than the Lincoln poster that does not portray the Klan.--MagicatthemovieS — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 16:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The views of the editor who put the work into this article should be definitely taken on board but obviously we need you to participate in the discussion for that to happen. Your reasons that the alternative poster unduly promotes the KKK is a very compelling one. I have pinged the anonymous editor and the onus is on him to come to the talk page now. If he continues to revert without joining the discussion then yes, we can enquire about semi-protection. Betty Logan (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • fyi - you can't ping IP users. I have posted a notice of this discussion on their talk page. - wolf 23:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
"I fear that using the Klan poster will make readers focus solely on the film's politics" Given that it is an adaptation of The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan (1905), we can't actually avoid mentioning or depicting the Klan here. Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Well there are two posters available so it does mean we have a choice. The KKK is an important aspect of The Birth of a Nation's history but MagicatthemovieS's point seems to be that this is not the sum total of its significance. I think that is a valid point. The film is a technological and cultural milestone aside from its controversial subject matter. The IP below argues that the KKK poster is "not only more well-known, but far more representative of the film's storyline." I couldn't say whether it is more well known, but the role of the KKK is certainly a far greater feature of the film than the assassination. So the question is which one should take precedence here? For me personally I just wanted the reverting to stop and don't have a strong preference, but we still need to resolve the matter and I am not aware of any policies or guidelines that would compel us to select one over the other. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The poster on this page was inexplicably changed back in February 2018 to an image of John Wilkes Booth jumping from the balcony. There is no reason to keep this image when the original poster, depicting a Klansman, is not only more well-known, but far more representative of the film's storyline. 24.18.128.102 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it seems that either poster would be acceptable. However, as a reader, I have visited this article a few times in the past and have always recalled the Ku Klux Klan poster. I am not seeing any good reason to change away from that poster. Furthermore, IMDb shows a similar image for this poster. Another consideration is what readers are likely to expect, either from shopping websites' home media covers or articles writing about this film (which tend to crop up on anniversary milestones). I'm not really seeing the Lincoln assassination poster being any more prevalent than the KKK poster to warrant replacing what has been there for a long time. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
This uses the assassination one. This uses the KKK one. This talks about the KKK one and how it was part of "a groundbreaking PR campaign". This uses the KKK one. A few anniversary articles don't show a poster per se, but they do show a screenshot of the KKK much more than of the assassination. And such retrospective articles do talk about the aspect of the KKK much more, so that poster seems more appropriate to have as part of the topic's context. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Since The Birth of a Nation's notoriety stems from its sympathy with and support of the KKK, who are portrayed as defenders and liberators of the oppressed South, as well as from its adherence to the KKK narrative in the demeaning depiction of black legislators, in addition to Walter Long's blackface characterization of the rapist/killer, the KKK poster would definitely be the most evocative and appropriate for this film.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The film's politics are just as importance to its enduring cinematic importance as its technical and artistic merits—so saying the latter is the "true importance" is just sucking it out of media history context. It's known, remembered, and discussed for both, as noted heavily throughout the article. Based on my own media studies background, and a quick refresh by looking through the article, the presence and portrayal of the KKK is more important to the film's historical significance than the Lincoln assassination and the film is very much infamous for its political stance. I don't actually agree that the KKK poster gives it undue weight because that is truly a significant factor in its initial popularity and enduring legacy. Given how much the historical discourse surrounding the film stems from its politics, I'm not sure it's really possible for modern readers to not already know about the politics. I just don't see the merit in downplaying the politics of a film that is known for two things, one of them being its politics. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia to protect the reputation of anything. The fact is that the KKK poster is far more recognizable than the assassination poster; after all, its source material is called The Clansman. 24.18.128.102 (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The idea that the KKK poster is more "iconic" cannot be proven objectively. We already spend so much time in this article on the Klan; I fear that if we use the Klan poster, all readers will think about is the Klan in regard to this film. Humans are visual creatures. I don't want people to think that this film is only significant for its racism. Just because a film is based on a book called The Clansman (in addition to another book) does not mean we have to show a Klansman in the info box. I understand the concern that the Lincoln assassination may be over-emphasized through use of that poster. We can reasonably compromise by using the poster that just has the film's title in a big red circle that is on Wiki Media. And no, saying that this film's notoriety stems completely from its depiction of the KKK is false. Also, there is already an image on this page depicting the Klan. No one here is opposed to depicting the Klan at all. That is a strawman.--MagicatthemovieS — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 22:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Your assertion that using the KKK poster will cause people to think the KKK is the only thing the movie is about is no more provable than that it is much more well-known than the assassination poster (which is demonstrable by the fact that it comes up more often in Google Images and is the poster given on IMDb). Should we find another poster to use in Pulp Fiction's infobox lest anyone believe that Uma Thurman is the focus of that film? Wikipedia's goal is to accurately describe its contents, so it is reasonable that the more famous poster is warranted. 24.18.128.102 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Google and IMDB aren't arbiters of fame. Let's compromise with the other poster.--MagicatthemovieS — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To clarify, I didn't say "all" of its fame comes from its politics, I said it is one of the things its known for. I just don't really understand the resistance to acknowledging that a significant portion of the film's legacy derives from its racism and its depiction of the Klan. I admit that it is also known for its artistic merits, but your argument is essentially "downplay one major element of the film's enduring significance". It's an objective fact that the film is known for its heroic depiction of the Klan and its use in subsequent positive portrayal of the Klan for decades after, and I just find it strange to worry that readers are going to be thinking about the film's racism... when the film is indeed known for its racism. I don't know why we should be downplaying that in any capacity. It is indeed one of the two big reasons it's significant. And it's not like the assassination poster draws specific attention to elements of the film's artistic and technical merits. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with drawing attention to the film's racism... I just think the article emphasizes it enough already.--MagicatthemovieS — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 00:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why using the KKK poster would "over-emphasize" the role it plays in the film. You've presented no proof or evidence that using that poster would do that or lead to any other problems; it hardly screams redundancy. It's pretty clear to me, through consensus, that the KKK poster is warranted. 24.18.128.102 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I think both posters are historically very significant, as the assassination scene was released in a film during an era where sedition was very much an issue, but I would be hard pressed to find sources to support its inclusion over the KKK poster- I would probably need to go to the library, and even then most likely it would be undue weight given to the sedition aspect, which is vastly outweighed by the lynching/racism/KKK recruitment aspect. I don't think we've emphasized it more than is due based on how reliable sources discuss the subject. I agree with TenTonParasol|. Seraphim System (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I am worried that if people see the KKK poster on an article I contributed to, they will mistake me for a racist - please have some compassion for me and stop pressing the issue! I know that editing this page =\= racism, but people are shallow and go by appearances. Please think of the concerns of others!--MagicatthemovieS — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 00:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you're scared of being called a racist by shallow people for dumb reasons who obviously aren't worth your time, but "someone else will be mad at me if it's this way" is not a reason. If someone thinks you're a racist for contributing to an article that just so happened to have a racist theme, that's their problem. Wikipedia operates on consensus, not emotion. 24.18.128.102 (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm asking for a touch of compassion here. I'm not asking to include misinformation in this article or anything crazy, I'm just asking that you allow me not to use a certain poster!--MagicatthemovieS — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 03:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
If someone really wants to believe you are racist I don't think it will stop them, it says "Clansman" on it anyway. I prefer the theatrical release photo because as a lede photo it's more likely to engage the interest of readers. Seraphim System (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems that MagicatthemovieS has revealed the actual reason they want this poster changed; so as not to be called a racist. This is an absolutely ridiculous reasoning and is not for the benefit of the article but the benefit of one editor of the article. The KKK poster has been shown above to be used substantially more, and considering the film is covered substantially more on its Klan sympathies than the assassination of Lincoln (an element that a great deal who've heard of the film have no idea exists), I don't see how the KKK poster was ever removed. Sock (tock talk) 14:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  • FYI: The poster was changed during a series of edits a few months ago, without any talk page discussion or even an edit summary. This article passed GA due to (among other things) "no edit wars", which is exactly what this edit led to. As it has been challenged, the original version of the article should be restored until there is a consensus formed either way. While we appreciate the efforts of any user to improve an article, that does not give them any special standing or precedence over any other editor, registered or not. This film is about the KKK, not John Wilkes Booth. The original poster is clearly the more appropriate poster. And lastly, I can't stress this enough: Wikipedia is not censored - wolf 00:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


Straw poll

  • Poster #1 - Wikipedia is not censored. That poster does not "promote the KKK". What's next? Delete the entire article about the KKK? Or the Adolf Hitler article for fear of "promoting" Nazism and Antisemitism? Or any articles here on the evils of world history? I could go into the whole issue of promoting political correctness or warring on behalf of social justice, but I won't. I'll just say that I think this debate is pointless. - wolf 23:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Based on the discussion above I count 7 for the KKK poster (including IP) and 1 against, so I think that is enough to restore the KKK poster for now. Seraphim System (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Birth_of_a_Nation/Archive_4&oldid=893536465"