Talk:Death of a Nation (2018 film)

New York Times
Since started making changes to the lead section's second paragraph that had a New York Times quote, it appears that they and subsequent editors cannot decide on the appropriate wording. If this is going to continue to happen, especially without any discussion, then we need to stick with the direct quote until we have a talk-page consensus on how to paraphrase it. Please note that some of the edits are technically synthesis, where the New York Times does not mention liberalism and fascism, and the Broich source does not mention the "falsehoods and misrepresentations". These were combined "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". These should be stated separately. Avoid this synthesis, which is against the NOR policy. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging, ,. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no synthesis here. There are two separate statements, "The film contains numerous falsehoods and misrepresentations" and "The film makes a category error in conflating liberalism and fascism" each of which are supported by a source, and merely connecting them with the conjunction "and" does not make it synthesis because no extra conclusion not found in the source is made (if you think so, please let me know what conclusion is there that isn't in one of the sources).
 * Perhaps you think that my edits to make the article adhere to WP:YESPOV and WP:FRINGE are unnecessary but I certainly don't think so. No serious historian or reliable source disputes that the film contains falsehoods and misrepresentations and so it should be stated as fact. The New York Times source states it as fact: "blends cherry-picked facts and historical falsehoods". Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To begin with, why are we attributing the statement to the newspaper publishing the article, instead of the actual writer of the article? Second, we can quote what two sources state about a subject, but we can't make it seem as if both statements originate in the same source. Dimadick (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't recall the specific rules of that kind of attribution, but I think it does not matter because it is completely possible to write without in-text attribution, e.g., "Historians and critics criticized the film for its falsehoods and misrepresentations", though I don't know if saying "falsehoods and misrepresentations" without quoting is plagiarism. I can't think of a good way to paraphrase that. But regarding the combination, it's definitely the "and" that's problematic. Furthermore, the New York Times is proper as a high-level assessment of historians' and critics' reaction to the film. However, I am unsure about conflating the individuals in the "Historical accuracy" section to reflect a general consensus. In other words, we should not take Broich and claim, based on his words, that historians found the film to commit a category error. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It had been a while since I've looked for more sources, but this seems possible to add in some capacity? Especially, "Numerous journalists and historians such as Kevin M. Kruse and Heather Cox Richardson have exposed D'Souza's falsehoods"? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As a news article, it is attributable to the newspaper as it has passed the editorial board, and it is standard to do so. In re Erik, joining them with an "and" - keeping them as independent clauses - does not cause any WP:SYNTH issues. But if you think so, I'm fine with splitting it into two sentence, though I have no idea how joining the two clauses with an "and" somehow changes the meaning of the sentences(s) to make it problematic.
 * Anyways, Something like Historians and film critics criticized the film for its falsehoods and misrepresentations seems reasonable enough I suppose, thanks for that suggestion, (I've inserted "film"to be more specific) and since there are only so many ways to say that, I don't think there are any issues with the phrase "falsehoods and misrepresentations". Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that sometimes details can be combined with multiple sources, like an easy example would be saying per one source that a film started filming on this date and per the other source, finished on this date. I think the combination here is problematic (and ripe for challenging, hence why I am heading it off here) because it conflates the category-error item as being part of the historians-and-critics reaction, where it was one historian talking about that such item. So I find it more appropriate to present the historians-and-critics reaction on its own, then subsequent sentences could cover what specific historians said. I'm a little concerned about taking someone like Broich and assuming his statements are the consensus among historians. That's why a high-level source like New York Times works, even though they don't really get into what specifics historians said about the film (which would have been so useful here). Also, in my research, I found this mentioning Paxton, who Broich quotes. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that sometimes details can be combined with multiple sources, like an easy example would be saying per one source that a film started filming on this date and per the other source, finished on this date. I think the combination here is problematic (and ripe for challenging, hence why I am heading it off here) because it conflates the category-error item as being part of the historians-and-critics reaction, where it was one historian talking about that such item. So I find it more appropriate to present the historians-and-critics reaction on its own, then subsequent sentences could cover what specific historians said. I'm a little concerned about taking someone like Broich and assuming his statements are the consensus among historians. That's why a high-level source like New York Times works, even though they don't really get into what specifics historians said about the film (which would have been so useful here). Also, in my research, I found this mentioning Paxton, who Broich quotes. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I would be fine with following the historians-and-film-critics sentence with brief (one or two sentences?) summaries of the historians quoted in the "Historical accuracy" section, such as saying that historian Broich said the film committed a category error, etc. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Place of "Conservative commentary" section...
I personally think the "Conservative commentary" section should be put under the "Critical reception" section as those reviews, though from conservative magazines/websites, still count as critic reviews, and thus should be put under that larger section so somebody can see they're related. In the meantime, though, I will at least put the two sections right next to (though not under) each other so they don't look awkwardly placed.--Neateditor123 (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123


 * They don't count as critic reviews. Film critics are those who review films routinely, so a distinction has to be made. Furthermore, if we were to merge the political commentary as reviews, then it would be WP:UNDUE weight of that content because the high-level sources indicate that critics panned the film. Here is a suggested approach: have a "Reception" section with "Film critics" and "Conservative outlets" subsections. That would make the appropriate distinction. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, fine. That's an acceptable compromise.--Neateditor123 (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

If conservative commentary does not count as film criticism, then would it not be the case that film critics views of the movie based on their political positions should not count as film criticism? Additionally, Paxton's comments sound like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Athanasius

Documentary label
attempted to remove all labels of this film as a documentary as seen here. I reverted it on the grounds that it has been called a documentary by all reliable sources. thanked me for my edit, which I assume is an endorsement to keep the labels as they are. This does not mean the document's content and framing should be considered accurate. Documentaries have a long history of being judged as objective or subjective, and political topics in the mix are no exception. "Documentary" by itself is a neutral term for this film's genre, like we have "Historical accuracy" in this section intended to be neutral (despite the content discussing inaccuracies). We can instead discuss expanding the lead section to summarize the article body more fully in regard to critics' and historians' contentions. This would be more in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sources use documentary so we should too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Adam Tooze
IP editors are trying to add a political descriptor to Adam Tooze beyond that of him being historian. The first IP editor, 216.116.0.48, also tried to change "Film critics" to say "Liberal film critics". The second IP editor had these POV edits here and here. While there is a basis to the description as seen here, it is being weaponized by POV pushers to try to discredit his commentary as a historian. One of them also tried to edit Adam Tooze itself. Not sure how political descriptors should work in historians' articles, but the POV intent is obvious enough. For this film article, if there are historians commenting in any other way about the film's portrayal of the welfare program similarity, they can be cited too. Pinging as another involved editor. Detailing the situation here in case it persists. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it is clear POV pushing; it is either WP:MEAT or IP hopping going on. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Worst
Three publications called this film one of the worst of 2018. They are mentioned in "Film critics" at the end of the first paragraph with the citations bundled together. I've also put a summary sentence (not naming the publications) in the lead section, complete with a reference tag. If other editors think it should be presented differently, it can be discussed here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Can't believe they would assume that lie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:6594:3843:DA62:C33E (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The Birth of a Nation
The title appears to be a clear allusion to the 1915 film, and I was wondering why that is not mentioned on the page. It's pretty easy to find sources for it: example. Would any object to including this information? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with it. I also found this and this and this mentioning The Birth of a Nation. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You could copy the approach at Fahrenheit 11/9 with its "Title" section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, Erik. I was literally just typing out a question on what section to put it in. I will follow your advice, and I appreciate the help of an editor as experienced as yourself. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I tried to add a few sentencing explaining why the film's title makes this allusion. Third-party sources seemed confused, which I tried to represent in my edit. Please improve what I have added if possible. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

sought to blank the "Title" section. Upon further research, I found that this has D'Souza talking about the title. We can expand the section with this content. Pinging. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Dinesh says its an ironic allusion I don't see why that is not what the section says, if we don't say it that way it implies that it alludes to it as being in favor of birth of a nation when that is clearly not true עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, I've expanded the section using what D'Souza says in the Limbaugh interview. "Ironic allusion" is not in the interview, but D'Souza says it is intended as a reference and explains why. I've included that. By the same extent, the filmmaker is not the final authority on covering the title. Reliable sources, including The Arizona Republic, can comment on the nature of the title. Similar commentary can be included from other sources. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I was basing it on this statement "So ironically, my argument is that if you play out the logic of the progressive Democrats, ultimately they will kill America" so i think that should be added עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've expanded the quote but would like to know what others think., , any thoughts on how the "Title" section looks now, with more content from the interview, and the statement from The Arizona Republic still kept? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * why does the Arizona republic get any weight its one film critic asking the question עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It gets weight because D'Souza, as a primary source (someone "close" to the film), does not warrant much weight himself. (That's why his complaint about reviews is at the end of "Film critics" section and limited to one sentence.) The "Title" section cannot be a a soapbox for a primary source to justify and put forth the message of their film and also keep out secondary-source commentary about the optics of D'Souza intending the title reference. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the source and revised Wikipedia's wording to make it clearer that The Arizona Republic recognized Death of a Nation as a play on The Birth of a Nation but still questioned doing that in the first place. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * the title section is where the title came from and what connection to something else there is so the only one who knows is the writer who came up with the title not someone else, he wrote it he gets to say what the title alludes to and why, so basically the title should have the reasoning as stated by dinesh and move the arizona republic film critic down to the film critic section where it belongs especially since that critic is already down there so just at the line about the title ther. As for complaint about reviews you referenced yes one line at the end is right. עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The "connection to something else" is not something that only a creator knows or can comment about. Third-party opinions are relevant, and the first citation is there for anyone who is more interested in the director's views. I think we should try to add more information rather than remove it if it is sourced. I tried to work on the section a little. It seems uncontroversial that the film is a "reference" to the 1915 film, I think we can just state that directly. Also, I think it's fair to call it an "ironic" reference based on D'Souza's language in the interview. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't advocating removing the material just to put it where it belongs in the film critic section because it wasn't the Arizona republics question it was the film critic in his critique on the film published there and since the said critic has his critique below in the film critic section i think that's where it should go. As for "Third-party opinions are relevant" yes they are where the writer doesn't make the connection so a third party can but a third party making the connection in the opposite way he meant and said the connection was is irrelevant. עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the film critic in question I bolded where i think the question should go עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Bill Goodykoontz, reviewing for The Arizona Republic, described the documentary as "messy, unintentionally hilarious". Goodykoontz said he gave D'Souza's 2016: Obama's America "a somewhat positive review" based on craft and despite "live-action recreations that are laughably inept" and a lack of narrative flow. He said, "D'Souza does some of what he did in Hillary's America, taking established facts... and pretending like they are some sort of secret that he alone has uncovered. He addresses some of the counterarguments to his positions... But he's not putting his claims together in any form that makes sense." He also questioned making a connection to the "hugely influential yet horribly racist film" The Birth of a Nation.


 * I think it makes more sense in the title section since it directly addresses that issue. The reception section deals more with the general reception to the film. Statements from film critics don't have to be limited to a particular section. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At least it should be acknowledged that its Bill Goodykoontz a film critic not attribute it to Arizona republic עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, that would work for me. I've added that it was film critic Bill Goodykoontz who said that. I agree with Wallyfromdilbert's point that a film critic does not have to be limited to a particular section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 January 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved both (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   13:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time? → Death of a Nation (film) – Per WP:COMMONNAME (it appears without the subtitle on its IMDB, on Rotten Tomatoes and in most other sources), which implies that "Can We Save America a Second Time?" may be a mere tagline. Tom Danson (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is already another film article at Death of a Nation: The Timor Conspiracy, so "Death of a Nation (film)" would be ambiguous about which film is under that particular title. Either have both films with their subtitles, or have "(XXXX film)" disambiguation terms for both. I do not have strong feelings about taking the subtitle approach or the year-film approach. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough...then let's make it "Death of a Nation (2018 film)", again, per WP:COMMONNAME. Tom Danson (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support for year disambiguation. I feel that NATURALDIS overrides common name for this, but accept the rationale for the years. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 14:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support if we move this to Death of a Nation (2018 film) and Death of a Nation: The Timor Conspiracy to Death of a Nation (1994 film). I decided this after reviewing recent reliable sources that do not even mention this film's subtitle. Would and  agree? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, fine by me. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 13:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Same here. Tom Danson (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support move like Erik Psalms79&#59;6-7 (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Accolades
An "Accolades" section was added before, based on this film having several nominations for the Golden Raspberry Awards. There are no other nominations I could find, and considering that the nominations are only under one organizational category and are booby prizes, I converted this section from being a table to prose. I did this because it allows us to write about these booby-prize nominations with fuller context. I know that in the past, in individual articles, the credibility of the Razzies have been questioned. I think it has usually gone into a table when other awards and nominations have existed, but here, a prose approach is best, especially in this situation where Trump gets nominated as "Worst Actor" based on clips of him in documentaries, and with his so-called "Pettiness" to make up "Worst Screen Duo". Editors are welcome to comment about this. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the Razzie's and it not for editors to constantly say the word "booby prize" in the article, without a reliable source stating the film deserves a booby prize. Stop putting the phrase "booby prize" in the article without a reliable source to back up your addition. Most folks know what a Razzie is and if they don't they can go the Wikipedia article on Razzie's because it has been linked.--CharlesShirley (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This POV pushing is silly. I said as much in my edit summary, but we don't assume readers will know everything, and it isn't "commentary" to factually describe what the prize is. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 16:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Etzedek24: You jumped to the conclusion that my edits were POV pushing.  You did not assume good faith.  Then you went to my talk page and gave me a warning for "disruptive editing", another example of not assuming good faith.  You may not like me edit but it was not POV pushing and it was not disruptive editing. You are wrong on both counts.--CharlesShirley (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The term "booby prize" came from the Wikipedia article, but it is no longer there. In any case, the reason for having the description is to indicate that compared to all other awards, how un-serious it is. Not everyone will be familiar with these awards. So regardless of the specific wording, there needs to be a clarifier to explain the nature of these awards. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * After looking at your contribs and talk page warnings, yeah, I feel pretty safe calling it POV pushing. Be wary that your tendentious editing could get you topic-banned. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 15:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, good grief. I did respond with substance to your edits. You keep putting the phrase "booby prize" in the article without providing a reliable source to support its inclusion.  You need to review what a reliable source is: Reliable sources.  You haven't provided one.  It is merely your opinion. That's it. Please provide a reliable source.--CharlesShirley (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I stated, the term came from the Wikipedia article itself, and it was reused here. It was removed, and judging from the edit history, descriptors simply come and go on that page. However, booby prize is a perfectly acceptable way to describe the awards. It has been used here and here. This does not mean that there are not other ways to describe the awards. It could perhaps be called parody awards or spoof awards. They are all alternatives. Historical Dictionary of American Cinema says, "They function as humorous opposites of the Oscars; given generally with good humor..." Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia MOS makes it clear that Wikipedia is not a reliable source to cite in a Wikipedia article. It is circular logic. Also, the two reliable sources you are citing do not refer to the Death movie. One article is from 2002 and the other is from 2011, both of them were published years before Death was released.  The final problem is that this article is not about the Razzies.  There is already a Wikipedia article about the Razzies and we have provided a link to it.  And finally the article clearly tells the reader what the Razzies are.  The article says, "Deadline Hollywood called the Razzies "the annual generally mean-spirited anti-Oscar list of the year's worst movies."  There is plenty of information to give the reader, already in the article, to let the reader know that getting nominated for a Razzie is not necessarily an honor.  This article is not about the Razzies.  The article already has enough information for the reader to understand the nature of the Razzie. Also, to ask that a reliable source be provided is not "disruptive editing".  That is a false statement.  Also, simply asking for a reliable source is not POV-pushing.  That is a false statement. If there an absolutely need for a third explanation of a Razzie then find something that is not so clearly  meant to provoke.  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Please provide a word that at least attempts to sound encyclopedic, instead of over-the-top hype.--CharlesShirley (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right that we should avoid circular logic. I never saw describing this award to be controversial and simply adapted the basic description that I saw on the award's article at the time. The point of sharing these reliable sources about the award in general is that the term is as acceptable as the terms "parody" or "spoof". I understand that you are making the case that readers should go to the award's article to learn more about the film. Now that I think more of it, "booby prize" may be too specialist of a term compared to the other options. I think, though, that we should describe the award in brief upfront. We could drop the extensive quoting and instead go with parody or spoof (or something similar that gets the point across). I believe in doing this because awards in general are meant to be recognitions of quality, and this particular one is an exception that warrants upfront clarification, at least briefly stated., thoughts? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with CharlesShirley's assessement of WP:CIRCULAR in this case (as you offered, you were reproducing a term that editors sought fit to include in the article's page, we were not literally citing a Wikipedia page). I'm sympathetic to your thoughts that we just may need to find an alternative to the phrase "booby prize". Parody sounds good, I thought maybe describing them as "satirical awards" would flow better, but I'm not sure. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 17:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What about "Death of a Nation was nominated for four Golden Raspberry Awards — annual parody awards also known as the "Razzies" — and won two."? Also could remove the subsequent Deadline quote as extraneous. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. I also thought about something said in a lower thread in this talk page re: the Razzies themselves. Summarizing them by calling them parody awards is not outside the bounds of any policies on here. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with this change too. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes
There were recent changes to the article that did the following: I reverted these edits here as unnecessary and inappropriate and against policy and guideline. Other editors are welcome to comment. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed "documentary" from the lead section's opening sentence based on the premise that its conservative bias and inaccuracy means it cannot be called a documentary
 * Used a single review to assert that "historians and film critics criticized the film" (which is against the policy of no synthesis)
 * Blanked the "Synopsis" section as "unsourced" despite such sections being accepted as being basic descriptions of the work itself per the guideline of WP:FILMPLOT
 * The Ebert website isn't even sure it qualifies as a film! The idea that's it's a documentary is tendentious. It's more a costume drama. You can't justifiably describe something that is false as a "documentary".
 * The synopsis is also a problem: as with most synopses on Wikipedia, it is original research, but in this case the film is presenting proven lies, so the synopsis should be sourced to independent reviewers. We shoouldn't be normalising this. It's a piece of white nationalist apologia purely designed to suck up to Trump, as several sources note. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment There has been a lot of back and forth edits on this article, but to focus on the diff provided by Erik for discussion:
 * 1) Can we get sourced attribution for the genre please? I appreciate where Erik is coming from, but there is a world of difference between a propaganda and documentary film. If you compare the Allmove entries for Death of a Nation and Man on Wire, you will see that Man on Wire is categorised as a "documentary" (in the infobox on the left) but Death of a Nation is not. "Political film" would be consistent with Allmovie's classification, but I regard the current incarnation (alt-right political film) as non-neutral illegitimate classification.
 * 2) Erik is correct that using single reviews to draw the conclusion that critics and historians have criticized the film is WP:SYNTHESIS. They constitute single opinions, and do not quantify collective opinions. Assertions about the critical consensus needs to be cited to secondary sources that explicitly discuss the critical consensus. MOS:FILM recommends that "Detailed commentary from reliable sources regarding the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) is encouraged."
 * 3) I disagree there is a problem with synopses on Wikipedia. The film itself is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and it is not original research to summarise a source. Indeed, the whole point of Wikipedia is to summarise sources because simply copying them "word for word" would cause Wikipedia to become a massive copyright violation. If interpretative statements are added to the synopsis then I agree the proper approach is to either source them with a secondary source, or failing that, remove those specific parts of the summary. I also disagree with the rationale that we have a moral duty to remove false claims from the synopsis. The whole point of including a summary of the plot on Wikipedia is so that the reader has an adequate understanding of the work, whether it's truth, lies or propaganda. It is the job of the media and academia to challeng falsehoods and Wikipedia's job to document those challenges.
 * Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I just also want to chime in on some of these notes -- As above, I don't agree with the categorization as "alt-right", it seems like JzG is providing undue weight to the Hollywood Reporter article, which seems to be the only RS that is calling the film itself alt-right. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 04:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

, can we discuss the broader implications of what you're pushing for? The general question is, when does a documentary stop being a documentary? Do none of D'Souza's films deserve the "documentary" label? Do none of Michael Moore's films deserve it? Would you treat Fahrenheit 9/11 the same way or not? Documentaries in general have not been impartial. The use of "documentary" here is part of a straightforward basic description of the film, and the complexities should be (and have been) explored throughout the lead section. We have so many historical dramas and biopics that are problematic in themselves, yet they will still be identified as such and then picked apart. The labels are not votes on authenticity. Death of a Nation has been called a "documentary" by Variety, The Guardian, IndieWire, The Hollywood Reporter, etc. even as they pick apart the film. It is completely unnecessary to front-load and build in all the complexities as if the reader won't get past the first sentence at all. One thing I've considered in the past is to have a political documentary film article that can get into how documentaries have been politicized, and it would presumably reflect the greater subjectivity and agenda-driving involved. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to creating a "political documentary" classification if that will really help, but my real problem is that the plain meaning of documentary - a presentation of facts - cannot be said to apply to something like this. At least Triumph des Willens was essentially accurate. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Political documentary
Editor removed sourced content from the lead section's opening sentence as seen here that puts the film in the political documentary genre. Now, this does not mean it is not propagandistic. This implies that to be a political documentary, it must be objective or accurate. We know that's not true. We would also not label biographical films as such if we insisted on that kind of criteria. The film's falsehoods are clearly outlined in the lead section, making it indisputable to any reader that there are problems with the film. As I said in the previous thread, "Death of a Nation has been called a "documentary" by Variety, The Guardian, IndieWire, The Hollywood Reporter, etc. even as they pick apart the film." Pinging editors involved on this talk page:, , ,. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The source redirects to the Box Office Mojo home page, it does not support the statement so it is not, in fact, sourced. I checked, you apparently did not. Pinging a hand-selected group of editors likely to support your POV would of course violate WP:CANVASS so I am sure you'll be notifying everyone else as well. Guy (help!) 16:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I restored it per WP:DEADLINK and also sourced The Guardian. I did not ping anyone to support my POV. I pinged editors who contributed to this article. I also notified WT:FILM to cast a wider net. As I highlighted above, numerous reliable sources identify it as a documentary even as they run it down. It's a simple label, and the full nature of the film is fleshed out in the lead section. If reliable sources don't stop calling it a documentary, you should not either. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The question is whether we should call it a documentary in wiki voice. Given the number of sources that call it propaganda, the conservative approach is not to label it as a documentary in wiki voice but to discuss the competing characterisations. You already know this. Guy (help!) 19:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The genre classification in the opening sentence is a nominal label. It's false to consider "documentary" some kind of badge of honor. It's simply the straightforward label used in running prose, like when Variety says here, "Meanwhile, political docs like controversial pundit Dinesh D'Souza’s 'Death of a Nation' ($5.8 million) and Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 11/9' ($6.3 million) weren't as fortunate." I have no objection to reliably sourced text criticizing the film's approach (having contributed the bulk of the "Film critics" and "Historical accuracy" sections) and summarizing that in the lead section further. The opening sentence is banally introductory, and the ensuing sentences can then dive into the subject matter and dissect it in full. Is there no way to revise and reorder the two current paragraphs for a better diving-in? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like most sources describe the film as a documentary, and so I would think that is an appropriate description in the lead. Documentary films are often propagandistic, and this film certainly goes far beyond most. However, even many of the sources that talk about the film as propaganda still call it a documentary. I agree that the lead paragraphs could revised for a better introduction and overview of the topic, such as moving criticism of the film into the first paragraph rather than only in the second. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , some do, some don't mention a genre, and some call it propaganda. Under those circumstances it seems to me that the label is best avoided or at least qualified. Guy (help!) 11:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think it is already qualified to an extent, although that is done only in the second paragraph of the lead. Maybe move the second sentence of that paragraph to the second sentence in the first paragraph? Do you think something else could be done to qualify the word documentary in the lead better? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would be OK with that I think. Just as long as we don't confer spurious validity. "political documentary that is historically inaccurate and identified by many sources as propaganda" for example. But I'd prefer "political film marketed as a documentary but criticized for factual inaccuracy and propaganda" or something like that. Guy (help!) 17:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This entire page has turned into a lot of partisan arguments. Haven't looked at this in a while, but back when it was a reasonably-neutral page, I recall Erik being fairly unbiased. Basically any source that doesn't line up with the "it's pure propaganda" perspective has been removed; seems like an excessive amount of distortion of the details regarding this film and reactions to it. Should probably include that perspective, but the emphasis on it seems a little strong. DirkDouse (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , maybe because all mainstream sources call it pure propaganda? It scores zero on the Tomatometer. It is a terrible, factually inaccurate propaganda film, and the only people who dissent are in the right-wing media bubble. Guy (help!) 11:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:American propaganda films
removed Category:American propaganda films as seen here treating it as a parent category of Category:Films directed by Dinesh D'Souza. I reverted as seen here, saying, "Not appropriate; there are numerous 'directed by' categories, so there is no obvious propaganda-related category connection without this." Pincrete responded on my talk page, but the discussion should happen here, so cross-posting their response:

"Hi, regarding this edit. I realise that ordinarily there are many 'directed by', 'written by' etc, categories, in addition to 'genre' categories - but in this instance "Films directed by Dinesh D'Souza‎" is actually a sub-category of "American propaganda films", ie it has effectively been decided that everything directed by D'Souza is inherently propaganda! Thus they duplicate in both parent and child cats - it is also an unusual judgement to make in advance'' about a filmmaker, possibly the 'directed by' category should be moved out of "American propaganda films" - meaning that these films are BOTH directed by D'Souza and American propaganda. Hope this makes sense, I don't dispute that these films are generally seen as propaganda, I was merely trying to tidy pointless duplication of categories." Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)''

I get the notion of this, but it results in nothing propaganda-related in the category section. A reader will not know that it has been "effectively decided" that everything by the director is propaganda. To use a more banal example, why would we remove "Category:American science fiction films" just because a director happens to have directed all American science fiction films? The attempted setup seems like an unnecessary mixing of categorizing films by their type and categorizing films by individuals credited in making them (directing, writing, producing, etc). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)