Talk:Song of the South/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacob21199.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

moved critical material out of lede

I moved the sentence "and considered to be "one of Hollywood’s most resiliently offensive racist texts".[ref name="sperb"/]" out of the lede. This is for several reasons. "is considered" is passive voice. Considered by whom? Well, considered by the critic being quoted. The Slate article cited by the editor who added this line, does indeed include that quote from Sperb-- but also states this about the Sperb book: "As cultural history, this is an impressively researched, convincing argument. But Sperb is on shakier ground as a polemicist. He implies that the company has whitewashed (so to speak) its past by burying a moral embarrassment while still reaping profits from it. And ashamed as I am to type this, I’m not sure he’s being entirely fair to Disney." (ref: Lingan) The "controversy" section gives an analysis of the various views of the movie's racism. The single sentence in the lede, quoting a single opinion, fails to give adequate context-- it is one side of a polemic.

In any case, this is material for the body, not for the lede. 76.241.154.140 (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It certainly must go in the lead that the film is widely considered to be racist. This is the central defining feature of current discourse about it. I suspect you would have difficulty finding a recently-written reliable source about this film that does *not* mention its racism: although no doubt some sources will attempt to refute this characterization, or set it aside to discuss other issues, I would be surprised to see a source that doesn't even mention the issue, So to censor this issue from the lead is a gross violation of both WP:NPOV and MOS:INTRO. I don't so much care about the precise wording, but taking it out because of passive voice is basing editorial decisions on altogether the wrong criteria. Of course, whatever is in the lead should be backed up by greater detail in the body, but that was true of the version prior to your removal, so that is also not a valid reason for removal. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The essential function of the lede is twofold: to identify what the subject is, and to explain why it's notable. This film's handling of race is an necessary part of the latter. However, I don't think that quoting a specific source and citing that as the consensus viewpoint is the proper way to handle that. The lede doesn't need to be fully footnoted; it can summarize facts that are supported by citations in the body of the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits. I am not a frequent Wikipedia contributor, but I was appalled upon reading the opening to the article to see it dancing around the issue of racism, and I realized that my changes were not perfect. The current version is much smoother and still foregrounds the issue of racism, which I felt was important. Creed of hubris (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree, current version reads well. 76.241.154.140 (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree wholeheartedly that racism should factor into this article in any way, shape, or form. It is a perception. A viewpoint. It in no way defines or explains the production itself, but rather people's perception of it. Now, since the movie has become a subject of much controversy, and has become one of a very few movies that Disney has not recently put into widespread production, there IS room for some notations on the racial tones, and the debates that have arisen as a result. Even the article that was referenced perpetuates several notable errors, including discussion of a master-slave relationship as part of it's racist tones despite clearly stating the movie takes place post-civil war. Even the notion that the racial undertones have anything to do with the movie not being available on home media could be considered independent research. Disney has a history of burying titles to create interest for them. They pioneered the 7 year plan, where they would release a movie on VHS for 6 months, then take it off the shelves and refuse to release it for 7 years to create interest and greater sales later.
But to me there's larger factors here. Song of the South was historically notable for a great many reasons well beyond the racial controversy. Song of the South was Disney's first endeavor to make a movie that featured both live action and animation alongside each other. A historical first. The movie won an academy award the year it was released, but it also became a historical first as it lead to the first Oscar awarded to an african-american, something Walt Disney himself fought very hard for. Hell the movie has been well remembered, referenced (like in Who Framed Roger Rabbit), and even it's soundtrack sung by children today who weren't even alive the last time the movie was aired in America. All of these, I believe, are much greater historical factors than an opinionated debate that has come to zero resolution, only suspicion. Smokachu (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you're going to get much (if any) support for the notion that the racism in the film should not be addressed in this article. It isn't just that some Wikipedia editors think it's racist: the sources cited by the article state that it is, and that obligates us to report it. Frankly, the original research here is your fanciful speculation that it's never been released on home video as part of some unique and secret decades-long plan to create demand for it. Yes, the film is notable for reasons other than its depiction of the 19th century race relations ... and the article covers those, in depth, and at length. Its treatment of race has been praised and criticized, and the article also reflects that. The issue of racism is mentioned after its other attributes in the lede, and it's addressed fairly briefly after all of the other information in the body of the article, so you can't reasonably argue that it's being given undue attention. In short, this criticism of the article is without solid basis. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Footnote 54

Footnote 54 links to a bootleg site. Should Wikipedia be linking to bootleg sites?

Rantedia (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It falls within the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:ELNO#3: viewing the bootleg catalog is not illegal in the US, but selling the dvd itself surely is. I've just removed it; we'll see whether that change sticks. We could restore the removed text (that unauthorized copies have been released) if we could find a secondary source for it rather than a primary one. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Song of the South. 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) 08:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Song of the South. 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) 02:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed edit

 – JBL (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I ask the permission to put these statements and sources at the Song of the South in the Controversy section. Tell me if there's something that must be modified:

The veteran African American animator Floyd Norman, first black animator at The Walt Disney Company and close collaborator of Walt Disney, who first saw the film as a kid and always supported the film, stated on his blog MrFun's Journal that Song of the South is a remarkable, simple, charming, heart-warming and wonderful film that was never meant to be a documentary on the post-Civil War South and that the African American audience at the time praised the film. He also remarked that all the controversy at the time and today around the movie come from people and detractors with a social and political agenda who chose the movie as an easy target to prove their point and "tend to read too much in the film, issues that are simply not there", using particularly the "Tar Baby" story as an example and praising the relationship between Uncle Remus and Johnny and the animated parts of the film.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

In a February 1947 interview, printed in The Criterion, Oscar-winning African American actress Hattie McDaniel who appeared in the film defended it by saying, "If I had for one moment considered any part of the picture degrading or harmful to my people I would not have appeared therein." In the same article, James Baskett, who played the role of Uncle Remus, commented, "I believe that certain groups are doing my race more harm in seeking to create dissension than can ever possibly come out of the Song of the South."[8][9]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.52.42 (talk)

References

  1. ^ "mrfun - Mr Fun's Blog - Revisiting Song of the South". mrfun.squarespace.com. Retrieved 2020-05-13.
  2. ^ "More Song of the South". MrFun's Journal. Retrieved 2020-05-13.
  3. ^ "The Fox Theater in Atlanta Georgia". MrFun's Journal. Retrieved 2020-05-13.
  4. ^ "The Tar Baby is still Black". MrFun's Journal. Retrieved 2020-05-13.
  5. ^ "The Tar Baby and Other Problems". MrFun's Journal. Retrieved 2020-05-13.
  6. ^ "Forgetting History is Never a Good Idea". MrFun's Journal. Retrieved 2020-05-13.
  7. ^ "Disney Animator praises "Song of the South"". The Disney Blog. 2015-03-31. Retrieved 2020-05-13.
  8. ^ "The Sad Song of the South". www.mouseplanet.com. Retrieved 2020-05-13.
  9. ^ "What's the Deal with the Song of the South?". www.mouseplanet.com. Retrieved 2020-05-13.
(This is related to these two reverts, as well as the discussion here. --JBL (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC))
P.S. @David Eppstein and JasonAQuest: Is this the same person who has been editing Criticism of The Walt Disney Company while evading a block? I can't see the deleted edits here. --JBL (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Among the diffs you list, This one and this one are exactly the same pattern of spewing long defense-of-racism block quotes into the article. It's also perhaps worth noting that the sentences in the quote appear to have been rearranged from their ordering in other internet sources to make it appear that the quoted person had a different train of thought than what they actually said. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Charming. --JBL (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
SO you're interested in perception, rather than what was said? Charming. Maybe he didn't see any "racism"... I didn't when I saw it as a child. Maybe you see it through some strange post-modern "gotcha!" lens, but I think at the time most people came away with some charming tales from the American Black south. Should they have introduced some whippings and lynching into a children's animated film, would that have made you sufficiently satiated for blood?
Mercster (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent revert, claiming 1) that it is advertisement and 2) that the seller is a bootlegger.

I have no connection to the seller of this DVD except that I bought a copy of his product. I have no information about the copyright status of the film. Since it is a major film, since all other home video versions are mentioned in the article, and since the new version is the only way most people can watch the film, it seems to me that it is information of interest to people who love movies. If it is true that this version is "bootleg" then that information could be added to the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A testimonial from a satisfied customer is just as inappropriate. The film is under US copyright, and so are most of the films sold thru that web site... which is pretty clearly just another guy with a disc-burner (promising that his discs with the copy-protection hacked will play on most devices). There are countless places on the internet where someone can download or buy bootleg/pirate copies of films, and it is not Wikipedia's role to document them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
With the exception of possible older VHS tapes or the laserdiscs that were released in Japan, any new copies of Song of the South are bootlegs and unauthorized by their owner (see Snopes article). Even though DVDs etc abound in many different venues (see Film School Rejects column), the movie is simply unavailable to be bought in any legitimate form. If folks want to search for copies of the movie to buy they can use a search engine like Google or whatever. It it not part of Wikipedia's purview to basically aid infringing on the rights of IP-owners, regardless of how much any of us would like to have a copy. Shearonink (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Restore deleted section about Unofficial scans and restorations

My section about "Unofficial scans and restorations" were deleted for being mistaken for a pirate copy or for not having a secondary source.

The secondary source SongOfTheSouth.net was added - and is clearly reliable, since it is currently used around 10 times already as a source for this very page. The statements the reference supports, like that the fan restoration contained image cleanup and color correction, are also completely non-controversial, borderline WP:BLUE. The reference has been deemed reliable for more than a decade. I'm sure there's an Wikipedia essay for abusing concerns about references to remove content objected to for completely separate reasons.

17 USC 108(h) also clearly applies, as the movie is within its last 20 years of copyright, not subject to normal commercial exploitation, not available for sale and distributed by a library or archive, including a nonprofit educational institution that functions as such. KristofferR (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

SongOfTheSouth.net is an acceptable source for cast information or reporting a Disney press release, but not for commentary and analysis. It's a blog.
The legal status of this copy of the film isn't particularly relevant. The real issue is what (if anything) Wikipedia should say about it. What you added crosses the line from information to recommendation, which is not what WP is here for. It starts with the obvious information that people make unauthorized copies of movies, then quickly turns into a review about the quality of this one, and ends with an actual endorsement of it! (Citing the comments on the archive.org page!?) Frankly, it reads like an ad on late-night TV ("People used to pay hundreds – even thousands – of dollars for copies, but technicians have worked tirelessly to bring you the highest quality copy, at one low low price!") About the only thing we could say about it without expressing opinions about it is that it exists, and I'm not sure what the point of that would be, except to encourage people to go looking for it (which isn't our role). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I can see that the language wasn't perfect and could be misread/misinterpreted like you did, although that was not the intention. The intention was to explain the deeply interesting history behind how archivists managed to restore a high definition version out of something never released in high definition. To explain that the restoration exists is pretty vital, otherwise the section above is deeply misleading, especially the Whoopi Goldberg quote, misleading people into thinking that the movie is not publicly available.
How do you think the language could be improved? Do you have any suggestions?KristofferR (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
What do you think of this?:
In the 2010s various 16 mm and 35 mm film prints of the movie were traded among private collectors. One of these prints, a particularly high quality 1080p scan, of a Technicolor 35 mm reel from 1972 or 1973, were used as the source of a fan restoration, where the picture was cleaned up and color corrected. The restoration was released on the Internet Archive, a digital library, and as of February 2021 is likely the highest quality available for viewing by the general public.
KristofferR (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Changing "is the highest quality" to "is likely the highest quality" doesn't make that less promotional. Bottom line: I don't see what's "deeply interesting" about it. Some people trade bootlegs of material that's hard to find. Some people collect golliwogs. Some people spend lots of time on weird projects (like contributing to Wikipedia). If this is noteworthy, where are the sources covering it? Your citations consist of 1) a 10-year-old blog post (which also claims Disney will finish restoring it by the end of 2012), 2) a public message board, 3) another short blog post, and 4) the site hosting it. If it's "vital" that we share the news that they can find it online, I'd propose adding this to the paragraph about overseas DVD releases:
"Bootleg copies of these releases and restored film prints have been traded by collectors."
They can google "download song of the south" on their own. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Splash Mountain

"The Disney theme park ride Splash Mountain, opened in 1989, is based on the film's animated sequences." This is, or very soon will be, outdated information. https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/25/883507841/disney-announces-redesign-of-splash-mountain-after-some-call-ride-themes-racist , https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/experience/america/theme-parks/2021/05/05/disneyland-snow-white-ride-backlash-prince-charming-kiss-without-consent/4962154001/Kdammers (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I've rephrased that a little to address that. The body of the article explains the situation more clearly. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
As of right now, the attraction still exists in all locations. And it is not even known when the attraction will close. It could be many months still until it closes. So for now, I have restored the wording as it is still correct, truthful, and up to date. The legacy section gets into the details about the attraction's future. Contributor19 (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
However, just to make it clear for readers, I also added a note to the lead-in concerning the attaction's future.Contributor19 (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, I have restored the wording to the previous version. As my version doesn't yet seem necessary. Contributor19 (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Disney Channel Lunch Box

An unsourced section presently reads: "The film (minus the Tar Baby scene which was cut from all American television airings) was also aired on US television as part of the Disney Channel's "Lunch Box" program in the 1980s and 1990s until December 18, 2001."

I'm deleting this for now. I watched TDC endlessly in the 1980s and 90s and am pretty darn sure the film was never rebroadcast there, at least in anything close to its full form (minus the Tar Baby or otherwise). I'm also unsure of how the movie could

I do believe the Tar Baby sequence may have been run in the 1980s as a standalone segment on a prerecorded episode of Donald Duck Presents, but I don't think we should say so until it can be confirmed. Ramapith (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Premiere

Contrary to common belief, the film premiered not at the Fox Theatre but at the Loew's Grand Theatre. (The Fox would have been ironic since southern rock band Lynard Skynerd recorded their live album there under a Confederate flag.) Colonial Computer 15:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Colonial Computer 15:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22yearswothanks (talk • contribs)

See also for "Lost Cause"?

JayBeeEll, RockabillyRaccoon - Recent edits have deleted and then reverted this "See also" content. Let's discuss if it is appropriate. Or not. And come to an editorial consensus. Thanks - Shearonink (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why it would be controversial to suggest that a movie that does not mention the Confederacy, has no references to the Civil War and is set during the Reconstruction era is not relevant to a movement that attempts to glamorize the Confederacy. They're two entirely separate and unrelated topics. It would be like linking salt to Chocolat. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a paragraph about this movie in Lost Cause of the Confederacy. Like you, I'm confused why it's there. But if that material remains there, it makes sense to link to it as a see also entry. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

So, should discussion about the movie be removed from the Lost Cause page? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I've thought long and hard about this. It's taken me a while to get to this point because initially I was thinking "wth is THAT doing in the 'See also'?" but in my opinion I think it should stay. Mostly because objections to the movie - both recent and when it premiered - are usually based on its (some would say perceived, some would not) romanticization of a time in American history when a people were being held in bondage. Regardless of Joel Chandler Harris's original intent when he wrote these stories and they were published, the When of the movie's events isn't readily apparent to viewers...during Reconstruction, before the Civil War, the when of the movie is amorphous. The Lost Cause mythos relies heavily on returning to a time in the past, to a time when "the South will rise again", to a time that is perceived as being of the time of Song of the South.
I also think the Song of the South section in the Lost Cause article should remain. Shearonink (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Song_of_the_South/Archive_3&oldid=1197273700"