Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)/Archive 4

Question about the ranks of the top 10
I think the ranks of the top 10 grossing film are incorrect and many are too small. Currently Gone with the Wind is at no 1, with 3.4 billion and Jaws is no 9 with 2.04 billion roughly.

Ticket prices in 1981, for adults were £1:95 and children £1. In 1960, adult ticket prices were between 25 to 50p and in 1940, they were about 18p for adults tickets.

The 1981 prices, mean that ticket prioes for adults tickets have rises over 5 times, to the current price of £10:75. Given this, when ET is adjusted for inflation, its 700 million initial run gross, becomes 3.5 billion. Jaws becomes about 2.7 billion, if tickets in 1975 to 1978 period were about £1:50. Gone with the Wind, made £32 million in it's first year I believe, and adjusting that for inflation, gives 1.9 billion. Gone with the Wind did get released several times over the following 4 decades as well. Star Wars 1977, when adjusted for inflation, if ticket prices in 1977 to 1980, were about £1:80, it comes to about 3.3 billion. I think it is possible, that ET when one adjusted for inflation, may have made more than Gone with the Wind.

Perhaps someone could look at this, and make corrections appropriately.

Sincerely

Mr FW Hooton, Film director — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.235.104 (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2016‎ (UTC)


 * This doesn't appear to relate directly to this article, but, out of an abundance of caution and to spare a new editor needless frustration, I have refactored this comment from the article, where it was inappropriately added. Rebb  ing  20:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There is quite a lot wrong with the above calculations:


 * 1) Gone with the Wind didn't gross £32 million in its first year, it grossed $32 million of rentals (which is the fee paid to MGM and was the metric in use at the time) across its entire initial release, which lasted until 1942. The gross will have been around $70 million, going by the rental ratios of the time.
 * 2) As the article points out GWTW had a roadshow and the tickets initially cost about $1. Adjusting for ticket price inflation makes no sense because that is like saying tickets would cost $20 today, which they don't because they no longer have roadshows. If you are talking worldwide grosses then using British(?) ticket prices is highly questionable anyway because tickets don't cost the same around the world. Something like US dollar inflation would be more appropriate, since that is the monetary unit used by the article.
 * 3) If you adjust for inflation you have to account for re-releases: GWTW had many reissues down the years (the dates are in the article) so to adjust for inflation you have to adjust the gross from each year using an appropriate index. The same for Star Wars and ET.
 * The flawed calculations above illustrate why Wikipedia does not permit WP:Original research. I have seen several attempts at ranking films adjusted for inflation, and while they often come up with different numbers (illustrating the inherent difficulty of the task) they all have one thing in common: Gone with the Wind comes out on top. It is so far ahead of other films that there isn't really much of a debate about it. Betty Logan (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Servants/Slaves
changed "servants" to "slaves" in the plot summary. I appreciate the logic behind the change, but question whether this is a correct description. They were clearly slaves at the beginning of the film, but by this point I was under the impression that the remaining "slaves" chose to stay of their own free will. If they have been freed by this point is it still correct to refer to them as slaves? Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a fine point that the movie doesn't really clarify. The Emancipation Proclamation had already been made, but the war wasn't quite over so technically they were still living in the Confederacy that considered them slaves. But the Confederacy was never recognized as a legitimate government. By this point in the story it is clear that their continued presence at Tara was voluntary, not that they had many other options. How about calling them "former slaves"? Markhh (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that would probably read better in the context of the story at that point. If EditTruth doesn't chip in today I will initiate the change tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gone with the Wind (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130415140512/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSFromYear=12 to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSFromYear=12

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

January 17, 1940
I know there is a dispute about whether or not the general release was in January 1940, but I have a link from the AFI that mentions this release date: https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/1181

The 'Gone with the Wind' Facebook page also, in 2017, recognized January 17, 2017 as the "77th Anniversary" of 'Gone with the Wind's release. Dpm12 (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect the January date refers to its "nationwide" date (although the AFI itself does not make it clear). If you click on the "details" tab of that AFI page you will see it premiered on December 15 in Atlanta, and then opened in New York December 18 and LA December 28. Gone with the Wind had what they called a roadshow release: basically a film would open in either New York or LA, and then go nationwide on a limited basis before entering general release. The modern day equivalent would be "limited" and "wide" releases for films such as American Sniper, which opened in December and then went wide in January. Per WP:FILMRELEASE Wikipedia uses the earliest date, and in this case it makes sense because GWTW was already smashing box-office records in late December. Betty Logan (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I know. I wasn't suggesting removing December 15, 1939, I was just asking if we could list January 17, 1940 (wide release) under it. I would do it, the the infobox has some note telling me I can't because of the dispute over the January 17, 1940 general release. Dpm12 (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Listing the second date would go against WP:FILMRELEASE because we list the earliest release, not the "wide" release. Similarly we don't list the "wide" release date at American Sniper, Frozen (2013 film) etc. Once a film has been released it has been released. Betty Logan (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Rhett caused the miscarriage?
I saw the movie recently and noticed that when Rhett and Scarlett are arguing at the top of the stairs, he states, "Maybe you'll have an accident." At that point, Scarlett moves towards him and he moves to the side, which causes her to lose her footing and fall down the stairs. Was it addressed in the novel if he deliberately moved that way, or is Rhett reacting simply to her moving towards him in the movie? —RRabbit42 (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the book so I can't answer your question. Someone watching this article may know the answer but I think you would have better luck asking at Gone with the Wind (novel). Betty Logan (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

POV editing in the lead
has now altered the lead three times to misrepresent the critical reception that GWTW received from contemporary critics (see, & ). I believe this contravenes WP:NPOV which states that Wikipedia should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It is simply not accurate to state the film received "very positive" reviews and remove all mention of the criticism. The fact is while most of the reviews were positive the more serious critics found flaws with the film. In the Gone_with_the_Wind_(film) section, the first paragraph qualifies the type of reviews the film received, the second on how critics found the film to be overlong and bloated, and the third considers the praise for the cast. Per MOS:LEAD the lead should accurately and neutrally convey the nature of the critcism that is covered in the article and the recent edits compromise that aim. Betty Logan (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with your assessment., have you reviewed the sources? This says, "Reviews were, for the most part, highly laudatory of the film... Consumer magazines and newspapers generally gave the picture excellent reviews, with many calling it the greatest film ever made. Some notable reviewers disagreed," and for the last part, it mentions The New York Times as an example. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede is meant to summarise the article. The proper routine is to correct the item where it appears in the article (or debate it on the Talk Page). If that doesn't get reverted or questioned, then correct the mention in the lede, on the basis that it fails to summarise the article. Valetude (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

"during the era of segregation"?
Reynolds likened Gone with the Wind to The Birth of a Nation and other re-imaginings of the South during the era of segregation This sentence is ambiguously worded, but grammatically it looks like Reynolds accused GWTW and TBOAN of re-imagining what the South had been like in the era of segregation, which is weird because both films were produced during the era of segregation and portray the South during the era of slavery. Not having immediate access to the source I'm reluctant to say whether it means that the films date to the era of segregation or that the era of slavery was also an era of segregation (and that implying the era of the films was not is just clumsy writing) and edit the article accordingly, so I'm bringing it here to ask if anyone can clarify. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any ambiguity here. TBOAN and GWTW are segregation-era films re-imaging the South. However, if you think the context would benefit from clarification I would suggest "and other segregation-era re-imaginings of the South" to make it clear. Betty Logan (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't think re-imaginings of the South during the era of segregation is ambiguous? Yeah, you and I might already know that one reading of the sentence makes perfect sense and the other makes significantly less sense. Your proposed change would fix the problem, but are you 100% certain that it's not meant to be read in the less intuitive fashion? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It might not read clearly if you do not know American history, but it is not ambiguous if you do i.e. there is only one factually accurate way that sentence can be read. It is clear that TBOAN and GWTW are films of the segregation era re-imagining the South. Reading it in the "less intuitive" way would be the factually inaccurate way, so the choices are making the language clear or removing it altogether. I think the first option is probably the right way to go. Betty Logan (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's only less intuitive because it would be factually inaccurate. Taken on its face without background knowledge, the sentence as it was when I came here if anything implied the factually inaccurate reading more strongly. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Either way, it still leaves us with the same choices: either accept the author (a history professor at Cambridge university) knows that the era of segregation came after the civil war and reconstruction and make the sentence clearer in regards to its factually accurate interpretation, leave it as it is, or remove it. I think the latter is too drastic and the first choice is the most sensible; the default is that we don't do anything and leave it as it is, and I am ok with that too. Betty Logan (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen The Birth of a Nation, but Gone with the Wind (the novel and the film) are largely set during the Reconstruction era (1865-1877). Racial segregation in the United States started during the 1880s, which are not covered in the novel.:


 * 'Jim Crow' segregation began somewhat later, in the 1880s.  Disfranchisement of the blacks began in the 1890s. Although the Republican Party had championed African-American rights during the Civil War and had become a platform for black political influence during Reconstruction, a backlash among white Republicans led to the rise of the lily-white movement to remove African Americans from leadership positions in the party and incite riots to divide the party, with the ultimate goal of eliminating black influence. By 1910, segregation was firmly established across the South and most of the border region, and only a small number of black leaders were allowed to vote across the Deep South. " Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "TBOAN and GWTW are segregation-era films re-imaging the South." Define re-imagining. Among other deviations from its source novel, GWTW largely removed Margaret Mitchell's unflattering portrayal of the Southern United States in the novel.:
 * The novel criticizes the sexism of Southern society, and in part satirizes the concept of the Southern Belle. "The Southern belle was bred to conform to a subspecies of the nineteenth-century "lady"... For Scarlett, the ideal is embodied in her adored mother, the saintly Ellen, whose back is never seen to rest against the back of any chair on which she sits, whose broken spirit everywhere is mistaken for righteous calm ." Scarlett herself is an anti-conformist figure who struugles against social restrictions. "...part of her does try to rebel against the restraints of a code of behavior that relentlessly attempts to mold her into a form to which she is not naturally suited." ... "Her bad belle traits (Scarlett's deceitfulness, shrewdness, manipulation,  and superficiality), in contrast to Melanie's good belle traits (trust, self-sacrifice, and loyalty), enable her to survive in the post-war South and pursue her main interest, which is to make enough money to survive and prosper."
 * In the novel, Southern society is full of ethnic discrimination, and Scarlett is often the target of it because she is the daughter of an Irish emigrant. "African Americans and Irish Americans are treated "in precisely the same way" in Gone with the Wind, writes David O'Connell in his 1996 book, The Irish Roots of Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind. Ethnic slurs on the Irish and Irish stereotypes pervade the novel, O'Connell claims, and Scarlett is not an exception to the terminology. Irish scholar Geraldine Higgins notes that Jonas Wilkerson labels Scarlett:  "you highflying, bogtrotting Irish".  " Dimadick (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Not enough mention of modern criticism
In recent times, the film has come under intense scrutiny and controversy for allegedly glorifying slavery and the Confederate. While I personally have no opinion on whether or not that's accurate (never even seen the film), the discussion is clearly notable. However, other than the brief mention of it being removed from HBO Max, there's absolutely no mention of any modern criticism of the film in the article. This really needs to be fixed. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 16:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The New York Times has a good article recapping it here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of modern criticism in the article. Pretty much all of the "Analysis" section which comprises a critique of the racial and sexual politics of the film comes from sources written in the last 30 years, most of it from the last few. Betty Logan (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Plot bloat
There has been a concerted effort over several years to get the plot summary in this article down to the specification of 400–700 words given by WP:FILMPLOT. Prior to its GA review the plot length stood at 1,800 words. During its review I managed to get this down to around 1,300 words. Since then numerous editors have pared the bloated plot down to a reasonable size. The last major effort was undertaken by last year, who reduced the plot length from just under 1,000 words to around 750 words. This was attained by removing extraneous detail.

However, a recent edit increased the plot length to 850 words. The edit added approximately 100 words to the summary, amounting to simply "fleshing out the story with details" rather than enhancing a reader's understanding of the main narrative strands. One example of this would be the sentence "Scarlett and Melanie serve as nurses, assisting Dr. Meade." This is a peripheral detail; it does not contribute to an understanding of the story. Scarlett and Melanie assisting as nurses is simply plot filler that has no further ramifications for the development of the plot. The story is principally the same whether this event happens or not. Likewise for "Ashley is nearly arrested for his involvement in the raid by a Union captain, but is given an alibi by Rhett and his prostitute friend Belle Watling." It happens, but it is a minor plot detail; the story remains principally the same regardless of whether it happens or not, unlike for example the KKK raid on the shanty town that results in Frank's death.

justifies their edits as "Undo revisions by Betty Logan...her version omits many plot points." All plot summaries omit plot points. We can keep adding them until the plot summary is 10,000 words long and we still would omit something. The reason the MOS advises 400–700 words is to guide the level of abstraction so that the summary only covers the key narrative strands. Also, it is not my version. The version I restored is the last stable version that is the product of a collective effort over several years to make the plot MOS compliant.

I take on board that the film is long and that has consequences for the plot summary, and that is why the plot summary is still over 700 words. However, given the fact that the plot summary is perfectly serviceable at 750 words and covers all the key plot developments I do not consider the length of the film to be a mitigating circumstance for increasing the plot by ~100 words. Betty Logan (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I concur with Betty's assessment. Per policy WP:PLOT, plot summaries are supposed to be concise. The primary goal is to give a reader an idea of what the film is about. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Add additional text I obviously dissent from Betty's assessment. The plot summary is not serviceable at 750 words.  The additional 100 words are absolutely essential to understanding the story.  Problems with the plot summary as Betty wants include a) Very little said about Scarlett and Melanie's actions in Atlanta, b) A complete omission of the Bell Watling character, who appears throughout the film.  I do believe that a longer movie justifies a longer plot.  I believe that, in this particular case, since this movie is roughly twice as long as a normal movie, 900-1000 words would be acceptable.  p  b  p  13:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there some aspect of the article body that needs such detail to be included? The plot is supposed to complement the article body covering the topic. It should not satiate a non-encyclopedic appetite to try to explain every aspect of the film outside of what is important for the topic and the article. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't decide whether what you've just said is nonsensical or whether I just disagree with it. It seems perfectly reasonable that articles on a movie or book contain a substantial plot summary of the topic.  And I've clearly delineated in my above comment which details I consider necessary.  p  b  p  16:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Cumbersome Style and illogical sentence structure
This article is written in a somewhat condensed and cumbersome style that makes it is difficult to interpret meaning in many of the sentences mostly due to an illogical sentence, paragraph structure and the use of colons and hyphens over brackets. Let's take one example.

In the extract below the statement that "..and Darryl Zanuck of 20th Century-Fox did not offer enough money" only makes sense if a minimum reserve price was set on the rights, for otherwise Darryl Zanuck would have been the only bidder and would have been successful unless the owner of the rights was holding out for a larger sum of money. If so, this should have been made clear as it was already stated the others did not bid due to lack of interest. The lack of interest and insufficient money are separate reasons and the sentence structure should be changed to reflect that.

So the likely flow of events was that:

1. Only Darryl Zanuck originally bid for the rights and was rejected because he did not meet the reserve asking price. 2. After some time Selznick changed his mind and bid and was at or above the reserve price and was thus successful.

Original paragraph extract below: Before publication of the novel, several Hollywood executives and studios declined to create a film based on it, including Louis B. Mayer and Irving Thalberg at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), Pandro Berman at RKO Pictures, and David O. Selznick of Selznick International Pictures. Jack L. Warner liked the story, but Warner Bros.'s biggest star Bette Davis was uninterested, and Darryl Zanuck of 20th Century-Fox did not offer enough money. Selznick changed his mind after his story editor Kay Brown and business partner John Hay Whitney urged him to buy the film rights. In July 1936—a month after it was published—Selznick bought the rights for $50,000.[4][5][6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adel314 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to this edit I reverted it because you removed a sentence from the source attribution. Your edit made it look like the fact was unsourced. Your edit also altered the content and chronology of events. The sentence is discussing the studio interest/events prior to Selznick purchasing the rights. If Zanuck failed in his bid to purchase the rights prior to Selznick purchasing them (as the source indicates), then the current version of this text better reflects the chronology of events. Your revision would only be an improvement if Zanuck's bid to purchase the rights was a concurrent event with Selnick's bid to buy the rights i.e. Selznick's bid won over Zanuck's. Since Zanuck's offer was knocked back before Selznick's bid, moving the description of this event to the end of the paragraph just makes the sequence of events confusing. Betty Logan (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, agreed.

I have suggested a couple of changes which I think makes this section flow a bit better - mainly about keeping the sames name:studio structure of the first sentence of those that were not interested, and the second of those that did not bid enough or were not interested.

Now on this point - you make the point the Jack L Warner did not bid because Bette Davis was not interested but in the next paragraph you make the statement

"Warner offered a package of Bette Davis ...." How could he do that if as you state she was not interested? I don't know how to fix this because I don't have access to the full story but you might be able to clear this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adel314 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The claims come from different sources, so there is always the possibility that one of the sources is incorrect, but provided they are both correct then we are clearly missing a piece of information. I suspect Davis possibly became interested when the novel became a bestseller and Scarlett became the hottest role in town. Betty Logan (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

National Film Registry
I think that mentioning how Gone With The Wind was inducted in the National Film Registry's inaugural year demonstrates how important and highly regarded the film was at the time. This is the standard practice on other films selected that year (such as in the pages for Citizen Kane and Casablanca). You can find a list of all the films inducted that year on the National Film Registry page. User:92.0.35.8 (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have incorporated the factoid into the section that discusses the NFR. Betty Logan (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Betty! Please could you also include it in the discussion of the NFR at the top of the page? 92.0.35.8 (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Credit as slaves
The cast section of the film credits some characters as being "servants". However, the entire rest of the article describes them as slaves. Regardless of how they're credited in the film, they should be described as slaves in the cast list - just like they are in the rest of the page. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The cast list presents the cast as they are credited in the film, just as every other film article on Wikipedia does. The film at the time obfuscated the horrors of slavery: it depicts the slaves as more like servants in the home and well-treated laborers in the field, among other things. The film is disingenuous in this regard; the presentation of the cast was part of the film's whitewashing of the slavery issue, but this was how the cast was presented and you are doing readers a disservice with this ill-judged revisionism. If we incorporated the changes you suggest then readers might come away with the impression that the film had an integrity that in reality it did not possess. The article does not shy away from the film's glamorization of slavery, or the off-screen double-standard that was at work. As you correctly point out the rest of the article describes them as slaves, so it does not indulge the film's fallacy. Betty Logan (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean now, thanks. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Listing Hattie McDaniel
I have read the notes that say Hattie McDaniel did not get star billing in the film's credits and so should not be listed here as a star because it is not Wikipedia's place to "revise history." I believe it is Wikipedia's place to present facts, and the fact was that Hattie was considered a star since she was nominated for and won Best Supporting Actress but was not given star billing because of the times. To look at "Starring" and not see her name is in itself revisionist history, perpetuating the whitewashing of history. Cindy.dashnaw (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a Black Lives Matters protest. We document facts, and the fact remains she was not a star. Winning an oscar has no bearing on the billing: she was not a star in billing, screen time or story structure. All four principle actors had significantly more screen time and their own individual stories, and the film chronicles their fates. There are at least a couple of other white actors who had more screen time who do not get star billing either. Betty Logan (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that Hattie McDaniel should be listed as a star. Because - behind Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable - she has the most of screen time out of anybody in the cast (excluding Leslie Howard and Olivia de Havilland). She is an a large amount of the film too and therefore I think her inclusion as a star is warranted. However, I feel like a note label could and should be listed next to her name to say how she wasn't historically credited. Furthermore, I would say she has roughly the same amount of screen time as Olivia de Havilland and Leslie Howard do. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Star" billing is a technical term and McDaniel did not receive one. The article would be factually inaccurate and spreading information if we stated she had star billing when she did not. Betty Logan (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thank you very much. I understand you now. Also just while we're here: I found this website listing the screen time all the Best Supporting Actress nominees have: OSCAR NOMINEES | Supporting Actress | Screen Time Central . It was bafflingly the only source I could quickly find on the amount of screen time McDaniel has. If it is reliable, then I was wrong about McDaniel having roughly the same amount of screen time as de Havilland - as the latter has 16 minutes 32 seconds more screen time. I strangely could not find Howard's screen time either but I assume his is the same case. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I recall reading somewhere that one of the reasons Hattie McDaniel won the oscar over Olivia De Havilland was that there was some controversy about De Havilland being nominated in the Best Supporting Actress category; some of the nominees felt it was unfair because she was cast in a principal role and her screen time reflected that. But also note McDaniel's screen time: it is only comparable to that of the other nominees in duration, despite the film being almost 4 hours long. The reason it feels like she had a much larger part is because of the impact she made; she deserved the win. Betty Logan (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

'Reactions from African-Americans' section
In the section Reactions from African-Americans the opening sentence says "Some black commentators criticized the film for its depiction of black people and "whitewashing" of the issue of slavery; they have done so since the release of the film". However, I think that changing "some" to "many" is justified. Because, the examples we include several individual opinions (such as Carlton Moss') and "demonstrations held in various cities" which a large amount of people took part in. Therefore, I feel like it is justified to change 'few' to 'many' - as while we only mention a few examples - those examples talk about a massive amount of people which a large amount of the article is dedicated to writing about (rather than the minority dissenting opinion). For example, the lead partly describes how the film has been criticized as "historical negationism, glorifying slavery and the Lost Cause of the Confederacy myth". This is a view shared by the people described in the 'Reactions from African-Americans' section, so if it's significant enough to be mentioned in the lead I think 'some' should be changed to 'many'.

Additionally, I think the lines 'In its editorial congratulation to McDaniel on winning her Academy Award, Opportunity: A Journal of Negro Life used the film as a reminder of the "limit" put on black aspiration by old prejudices" and "Malcolm X later recalled that "when Butterfly McQueen went into her act, I felt like crawling under the rug" should be moved for cohesion. I think it would be more appropriate if they came after the sentence "Opinion in the black community was generally divided upon release, with the film being called by some a "weapon of terror against black America" and an insult to black audiences, and demonstrations were held in various cities" - as the paragraph then changes the subject to describe positive things said by the black community. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The article adopts no position on the weight of opinion, other than that it existed. Neither does the article articulate the scale of demonstrations, other than that they took place (which is a different type of opinion to commentary anyway). If you want to explicitly quantify the scale of opposition then it needs to be explicitly sourced to that effect. In reality there weren't that many black commentators around at the time, so most of the criticism has come in the intervening years. MOS:WEASEL singles out "many" as a vague, ambiguous and potentially biased term. It also singles out "some" as well so the opening sentence probably needs to be neutrally rephrased.


 * I am slightly confused by the second suggestion. Perhaps you should reproduce the paragraph here on the talk page as you think it should be restructured. Betty Logan (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that there weren't that many black critics around in the West at the time - however, many black people still protested the film in various cities as the source says. Lots of protests were conducted by several branches of the NAACP. Additionally, I don't understand what you mean by "(which is a different type of opinion to commentary anyway)" and I would appreciate it if you explained that to me.
 * I think that paragraph should be restructured like: "Opinion in the black community was generally divided upon release, with the film being called by some a 'weapon of terror against black America' and an insult to black audiences, and demonstrations were held in various cities. In its editorial congratulation to McDaniel on winning her Academy Award, Opportunity: A Journal of Negro Life used the film as a reminder of the 'limit' put on black aspiration by old prejudices. Malcolm X later recalled that 'when Butterfly McQueen went into her act, I felt like crawling under the rug'. Even so, some sections of the black community recognized McDaniel's achievements to be representative of progression: some African-Americans crossed picket lines and praised McDaniel's warm and witty characterization, and others hoped that the industry's recognition of her work would lead to increased visibility on screen for other black actors." 92.0.35.8 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I have relocated the Malcolm X comment to follow on from the criticism. I agree that it follows on thematically. I don't agree with re-ordering the second part; The "even so" segment contrasts the recognition of McDaniel's achievement with the criticism. Betty Logan (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * AS for you other concern I have removed "some". I have not added in "many" as you have requested. The source the claim is attributed to does not quantify the criticism and in such cases words like "some" and "many" are discouraged by WP:PEACOCK. It is not an editor's place to judge the scale of criticism. Betty Logan (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thank you for your edits. Additionally, I now agree with you about the placement of Opportunity: A Journal of Negro Life's letter. I am completely satisfied with how the paragraph is written now :) You should be very proud of yourself for your hard work and I mean that sincerely. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have always tried to make this article as neutral and as factual as I can. It is a cinematic milestone, I feel like it has earned its plaudits, but most of the criticism is justified too. Its whitewashing of slavery and the KKK is problematic, and the rape is just as bad if not worse. While its makers excelled in its making and achieved their objectives, they obviously got a lot wrong too.  Betty Logan (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Reception
The opening of the page says that Gone With The Wind is regarded as one of the greatest films of all time - however, I feel like the sections discussing criticism of the film as 'historical negationism' contradicts this. A lot of people criticize it for being historical negationism - and therefore I don't think it can be considered 'one of the greatest films of all time' when a significant amount of people have issues with it. It was protested by the NAACP upon release - with many black people criticizing it as historical negationism. Whilst the film was considered one of the greatest films of all time for decades - and there were many polls praising it as such which are listed in the article - a large amount of people have described it as historical negationism in recent years (which is demonstrated by the '21st-century reappraisal' section). Additionally, the polls given in the article are mostly from the 20th century. Therefore, I feel like saying it is "regarded as one of the greatest films of all time" is no longer accurate - and that this statement should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.35.8 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this is critical and would appreciate if someone replied to it. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Most of the polls highlighted in this article actually come from the last decade or so: as detailed in the audience response section it topped the Harris Interactive polls twice: in 2008 and confirmed again in 2014. As detailed in the critical re-evaluation section it made the cut in Sight & Sound decennial poll in 2012 and the BBC poll of international critics in 2015. As detailed in the Industry recognition section, it made the AFI polls in 1998 and confirmed in 2007 (have they done any since?) and a Hollywood reporter poll in 2014. They Shoot Pictures (which aggregates data from "greatest film" lists) has it listed at #108 in the 2021 edition. It has dropped slightly since TSP started compiling data (it was ranked at #88 in 2006) but has been consistently ranked in the 100–110 range over the last decade. There is simply no evidence that its standing has changed in the last few years. Films can receive criticism and still be highly regarded; they are not contradictory concepts. Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, thank you. I genuinely missed those polls and appreciate you bringing them to my attention. And, they haven't done any AFI polls since 2007 :) 92.0.35.8 (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)