Talk:Hellstorm (film)

Documentary?
There was an edit war on this page leading up to a report at WP:AN3. After hearing from, whose point of view is to labelled it as a documentary to reduce the bias of the article and represent the fact that your quote came directly from the SPLC at User_talk:Isi96, they provided the following sources to back the label up:


 * Google prominently displays "Hellstorm 2015 Documentary/War"
 * Wikidata
 * genocidescholars.org
 * plex.tv
 * letterboxd.com
 * IMDB
 * avclub.com

And so I did an analysis on 's talk page in response:


 * wikidata - a sister project of wikipedia, user generated content, therefore not should not be relied upon to build a consensus.
 * IMDB - See WP:IMDB. We generally do not use the site for reference or support. (bumping this up primarily because many of the sources you indicated are using IMDB as the source).
 * genocidescholars.org - a single paragraph with a link to the trailer. there's no WP:SIGCOV nor critical coverage. This seems to be just a quick republishing of publicity materials... which is duplicate of what is in plex.tv below, and in IMDB above.
 * plex.tv - show listing. republication of information taken from IMDB.
 * leterboxd.com - relies on The Movie Database for film data, which is also a community site, therefore WP:UGC as well.
 * AVClub - powered by IMDB.

At this point, I would like to reiterate my point that Skarz should try to find more reliable, independent sources to back the documentary label per WP:BURDEN. – robertsky (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what the proper categorization of this movie is and why documentary is so problematic? Do you have a proper argument about why it is not a documentary? Should we just leave it at "Motion pictures about WWII" or "Films about WWII"? By the way per WP:BURDEN adding the documentary category does not meet the criteria as it is not mentioned here:For comparison, the film Loose Change has the documentary category despite being a well known conspiracy film. skarz (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the documentary label has being challenged and deemed contentious by at least one other editor. As for Loose Change, a quick look indicates that most, if not all mentions of "documentary" are in quotes and/or supported by references. – robertsky (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly if we can't even accurately categorize the movie due to lack of reliable sources then it needs to be deleted. What do you think @Doug Weller and @Isi96. skarz (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No reason to delete it. I also looked at Loose Change and will work on that. Some sources don't use the word documentary. the reference to Documentary Wire is about a site  where you can “Watch Free Documentaries Online. Discover thousands of eye-opening, paradigm shifting, and mind-blowing top documentary films.” Eg the TRUTH about 911. It's also community driven, and is no longer up.  Doug Weller  talk 17:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * By referring to Loose Change I was really referring to the bigger picture of how controversial films are categorized on Wikipedia. Seems like most fall under original research because they are using the dictionary definition of documentary. The dictionary doesn't differentiate whether a documentary film is controversial or heavily slanted. It's time for a massive maintenance project involving:
 * Category:Pseudoscience_documentary_films
 * Category:Documentary_films_about_conspiracy_theories
 * Category:Documentary_films_about_the_September_11_attacks
 * Category:Documentary films about American politics
 * skarz (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In my view, there is no direct connection between whether a film is "controversial" and whether the film is a documentary. Some documentaries are widely described as controversial while others are not. Consider the 1935 Triumph of the Will, produced and directed by Leni Riefenstahl. That film is overtly and explicitly Nazi propaganda, and yet it is acclaimed as a figurative "triumph" that created and popularized widely used techniques of documentary filmmaking. A documentary is a film that is built around footage of real events and real people. Even Nazis at a giant Hitler rally. Films that are not documentaries utilize actors who are skilled at pretending and engaging in theatrical performances. That is the only meaningful distinction, and it is not valid to refuse to categorize a film as a "documentary" because it is propaganda or dishonest or anti-semitic or misleading or nasty or even downright stupid. None of that means anything when deciding whether or not to categorize a film as a documentary. Cullen328 (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My problem with this is that Documentary film's first sentence is "A documentary film or documentary is a non-fictional motion picture intended to "document reality, primarily for instruction, education or maintaining a historical record"."
 * Of course, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. But this film is propaganda. Doug Weller  talk 11:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This issue will never be resolved because any interpretation of the movie's content will constitute original research and opinion. There is no reliable source to reference in this case.
 * And of course there's WP:NOTBURO which states
 * "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures."
 * The only other nibble of insight I have to offer is that my understanding of WP:USESPS is that since the author of the book in which the film is based on is a recognized expert historian and thus the author can be a reliable source as to the categorization of his own film.?
 * Some of his books are reliably published, others, like this one, definitely not. Self-published means he couldn't find a proper publisher. Doug Weller  talk 17:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Does WP:USESPS differentiate between an author that was once published or sometimes published? He is cited as an expert historian by newspapers spanning several states.
 * Also @robertsky rather quickly dismissed the fact that the International Association of Genocide Scholars considers the film to be a documentary per their website. They have been around since 1995 with globally held conferences on the topic of genocide. Interestingly, they do not include Europa under documentaries. I wonder why. skarz (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Many of the entries in that category on their website are republications of IMDB and other sources. This is no different from WP:SYNDICATED in concept. I don't doubt their standing as an organisation, but I doubt the near 100% reuse of IMDB and other sources (without attribution to boot. Searching on Google the exact text will turn up IMDB and other sites). This reuse leads me to believe that it is not endorsement by the organisation but simply is just a way for the organisation to keep track a filmography of materials relating to genocides. – robertsky (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The only logical conclusion I can come to at this point that does not constitute original research or opinion is:
 * Acknowledge the producer's self-categorization per WP:SPS / WP:USESPS
 * Follow the sentiment of WP:IGNORE and categorize it based off similarly themed movies
 * XFD due to lack of notability and RS (already suggested)
 * This is the silliest and most pedantic display of semantics I have ever seen. I have gone round and round with the WP:BURDEN dance and yet no one else in this thread has suggested anything remotely constructive other than offer their feelings. skarz (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As with my link, that’s an essay and I am in any case not sure it is clear on your issue. He couldn’t get it reliably published despite his track record which indicates to me it was deeply flawed. Maybe this is something for RSN. I wouldn’t trust someone who wrote that book to be objective. Doug Weller  talk 19:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As with my link, that’s an essay and I am in any case not sure it is clear on your issue. He couldn’t get it reliably published despite his track record which indicates to me it was deeply flawed. Maybe this is something for RSN. I wouldn’t trust someone who wrote that book to be objective. Doug Weller  talk 19:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)