Talk:Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party

Untitled
? So what is the plot? Details? What is the movie about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.171.187 (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Reception: Include National Review?
The current Reception section gives three specific critics' views. Two of them are overwhelmingly negative, whereas the third, John Fund's from the National Review, is sort of positive. However, the MetaCritic and Rotten Tomatoes scores clearly show that professional critics with an even somewhat positive opinion of the movie are in the extreme minority. Including one of them among the three therefore seems like giving them undue weight; it feels like a misguided attempt to be balanced.

On the flip side, perhaps something could be added to emphasize positive audience perception as contrasted with negative critical perception. For instance, the IMDB score is currently 5.7/10, and the MetaCritic user score is currently 6.8/10.50.132.4.93 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you bear in mind that the ability to edit the Wikipedia is also the same excuse for the censorship famous in Wikipedia repeated below, you will realise that what the producer says in his video about the film isn't mentioned and why. Good luck with the Clinton conspiracy on here. HA!

Weatherlawyer (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for writing your concerns here! The reason why IMdB, Rotten Tomatoes, and MetaCritic audience scores are not used here is becasue they are voluntary surveys, meaning that anyone who wants to vote can vote. This means that these scores are not the most accurate ways of measuring audience opinion and thus should not be included (but don't get me wrong, I too believe that most viewers enjoyed the film). Also, WP:MOSFILM states: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew". I learned all this myself while editing this article. However, if CinemaScore does a survey of viewers, it should be included, as it will be more reliable. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, if you can find any other positive reviews from notable people/sources, feel free to add them. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this makes "was panned by critics but received favorable ratings by audiences" awkward since we can't cite the usual audience favorability metrics (no CinemaScore yet). The Obama's America article does list a RT audience score for what that's worth. I continue to think the John Fund quote is getting undue weight, but D'Souza's other two films have significantly longer reception sections, so in time it might just work itself out. 50.132.4.93 (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As for the John Fund review, Fund is a clearly notable (he has his own Wikipedia article) person working for a notable magazine, so I think his review would definitely be worthy of mention, even if it is in the minority. When I searched the film, this review was one of the first I saw, so I included it. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Release dates
I think that this version is better for this article (or any in general). However, one editor has been persistently removing the wide release date and only including the limited release date. Is there any Wikipedia guideline that states that only the initial release should be mentioned? Otherwise, I think it is better to include both, as there would be absolutely no reason not to. Thoughts? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:FILMRELEASE, "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." I believe both could be included, don't think that it would somehow overcrowd the infobox. Mymis (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The rule I always was taught/corrected with is the one above, its earliest, not necessarily wide (see pages for Cafe Society, Steve Jobs, The Revenant, etc). TropicAces (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)tropicAces TropicAces (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, but there are numerous other film articles on Wikipedia that include more than one release date (including American Sniper, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Lone Survivor, and other D'Souza films). If we're just going to include the first release date, then would you change those articles as well? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Be careful that doesn't erupt into WP:POINT. Sometimes Wikipedia just can't achieve consistency, and we have to live with it. If you can achieve wide consensus, that's good, but don't make a crusade to change other articles based on a discussion in this article. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 19:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In response to TropicAces, your argument is to include only limited release date in this article. However, all three articles that you give as an example include both limited release date (a festival) and wide release date. Mymis (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I still think it would be better to include both release dates. I see nothing wrong with including both, and it is informative. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

To respond to Mymis, the initial dates (festivals) represent the premiere (one of two dates in infobox) and the second date is initial Theaterical release (limited or wide). So when Café Society has "May 11, 2016 (Cannes)" as its first listing and "July 15, 2016 (United States)" as its second, that July 15 date is its limited (initial) release. It didn't go wide until July 29, but that's not listed. I'm all for putting both limited and wide dates, but it's against "Wikipedia law". Just thought I'd clear things up. TropicAces (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

So, did Trump actually see the film?
"On July 23rd, Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee against Clinton, called on supporters to see the film."

Did Trump actually see this film? Did he offer a cogent review? Is he merely dog whistling? Isn't he afraid of the abysmal ratings reflecting poorly on the Republican Party? Do the majority of Republican leaders and RNC actually buy into the film errors? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The sources say Trump called on supporters to see the film. Thus, that is what we will include on this article. Also, please mind WP:NOTFORUM when commenting on a talk page. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Noteworthy review?
Is this review worthy of inclusion to this article? Neither the author or the website have Wikipedia articles, so It doesn't seem like either is particularly notable. Because of this, is this review noteworthy of inclusion, or should we remove it? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

NPOV
The "reception" area of this article is terrible.

User Mymis removes the fact that the movie had an 80% review score by 6000 viewers, as opposed to his "23 critics who gave it a 4%" on Rotten Tomatoes. You cannot dispute a fact in the name of your own bias.

To add to this; what is the giant quoted mess of newspaper editors? That is one of the largest "reception" areas of a movie wiki I have ever read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mctuker (talk • contribs) 23:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's 80% based on 10,000+ user reviews. 4 years from thenJawz101 (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It is not my own bias. According to WP:MOSFILM, reviews from Rotten Tomatoes or IMDb should not be included as "they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew". Reception section could be trimmed a bit, although it's really not that long. Mymis (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there a CinemaScore poll for Hillary's America or another reputable poll out there that we could use for this article? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is that CinemaScore carries out many reviews during opening weeks (for smaller movies) and publishes them later on, giving review scores to directors. Dinesh states in a Facebook post that the film received an A- from CinemaScore. We will have to wait and see when it is published. Mctuker (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I do have to say this article has massive NPOV issues. Seems very biased. Never heard of Golden Rasberry awards. Why is this so prominent, seems that it is not WP:DUEWEIGHT Eruditess (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Interviews section
The Interviews section cites as its source the relevant page from the Internet Movie Database. The Database actually has a detailed list of cast members for this film, but does not seem to list "interviews" at all, nor gives much of a summary for the film. Another source will be needed to establish what is these persons' actual role in the film. Dimadick (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the IMDb source is not a very good source for this article. The source does not give a list of interviews, but the three people who were interviewed, as well as D'Souza himself, are listed on the source as playing themselves, which at least indicates an interview or cameo. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The IMDb is using the terms "playing himself/herself" in depictions which often have nothing to do with either interviews or cameos. The entry on Barack Obama includes 214 credits as "playing himself" in anything from documentaries and television series to tv specials depicting interviews or White House-related events. Determining which is which often requires actually seeing this particular depiction or finding a relevant source. Dimadick (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The New American
One of the sources quoted in the reception section is a text from The New American and it is used to support a claim that "[t]here isn't any great difference between the two parties". The New American is a publication owned by the John Birch Society, a far-right organization which is not exactly known for either impartiality, nor fact-checking. Does it meet the criteria as a reliable source? Dimadick (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is just what the writer thinks, and it is part of his rationale for his opinion of the film. Including this quote is not the same as saying in Wikipedia's voice that there is little difference between the two major U.S. political parties. Also, this is a film review, not a news article or anything like that, and I think it should definitely stay because it gives a good example of what some conservative-leaning people think about the film. I don't think the fact that the writer is writing in a publication owned by a conservative group is a very big deal here. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

When speaking of reliable sources, I was going by the guidelines in Identifying reliable sources: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. ... Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

I am not particularly concerned on whether the author himself is conservative but rather on whether the source meets the criteria. And I am not even certain that the text from Kurt Hyde is actually a film review rather than political coverage or opinion. His other recent texts seem to be straightforward news articles about demonstrations in Cleveland, whether the Republican Party's officials will rewrite or revise the rules concerning delegates, the resignation of Nigel Farage, an apparent fraud case involving disability payments, the use of Internet voting in Utah, confusion about ballots in Ohio, irregularities in the voting process and methods used, requests for audits in Iowa, anti-establishment sentiments in Iowa, and a protest march in North Yorkshire. He does not seem to be a film critic at all. Dimadick (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the source does meet the criteria. The last sentence in Identifying reliable sources that you pasted here is a good discription of how we are treating Hyde's article here. We are not stating Hyde's statements as fact, just as his view. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Communities Digital News
One of the sources favorable to the film is a text from the Communities Digital News. I had never heard of them before, so I did a bit of searching. Based on the 2014, they are the new name for the "Washington Times Communities", a publication formerly affiliated with The Washington Times. Their current editorial staff is listed here and mentions that the publication's "Editor in Chief" Lisa Ruth is a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) intelligence analyst.

I am not exactly sure the quoted source is accurately represented in the article. The main arguments of the writer Dennis Jamison, a faculty member of the West Valley College, is that:
 * "even if historical events are the measuring stick regarding the two political parties, the Democratic Party is hands down the winner in instigating pain and suffering upon the human race."
 * "The premise that Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary is overkill is a bit ridiculous in light of the reality that Hollywood Elitists and Leftists produce carefully crafted political propaganda that is packaged as popular entertainment. That must be a different ballgame, and no longer considered “foul.”"
 * "The truth that becomes apparent in D’Souza’s film is that it was one political party with its core of political power centralized in the Deep South that pushed an agenda that violated the early basis of tolerant relations between the Europeans and American Indians, violated basic human rights of specific Indian nations in the Southeast portion of the United States, and perpetuated the evils of slavery to a much greater extent through legalized bondage of human beings. He also makes serious attempts to examine the criminal intent behind the activity of Democrats over time."
 * "In applying that measuring stick to the Party of the Democrats, consider this: The Party was created by an individual who believed in slavery, and was a slave owner, and defended the institution of slavery as an elected official, forced human beings off their land at gunpoint and said that it was good for them while President of the United States, blatantly violated the U.S. Constitution and ignored the ruling from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, and who “ruled” the United States rather than governing within the parameters of the separation of the three branches of the federal plan. If one is serious, and looks with common sense at the contemporary Democratic (a greater misnomer there may never be) Party, what has actually changed? Only the names have changed, the current agenda is still to divide and control."
 * "Dinesh D’Souza’s efforts only expose the tip of the proverbial “iceberg” as the film cannot go nearly far enough in the attempt to portray the truth of America in the historical pursuit of freedom and justice. There may be several elements that have been omitted that peel away the various layers of myth, mystery, and outright manipulation of truth in looking at the history of the United States of America since the founding."

In summary, the Democratic Party is guilty of massive human rights abuses and it is anti-democratic, it controls Hollywood and its propaganda machine, Andrew Jackson was purely evil and corrupt and the Democratic Party continues to support his ideas, the Democratic Party is still the pro=slavery party of the Deep South and the Confederatates, and Dinesh D’Souza is a moderate who did not go far enough in exposing the truth about the Democratic Party.

Not exactly the most neutral source Wikipedia could find, but is it reliable? Dimadick (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the bigger question is whether this review/opinion piece is noteworthy enough to include here. I started a discussion above entitled "Noteworthy review?" about this. Other than that, I will note that some of the negative reviews, such as the IndieWire and Boston Herald reviews, do not seem any more neutral or objective either. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually a couple of questions.
 * If the source is kept, should there be a better summary of its contents than a random line from its introduction?
 * Unlike Wikipedia's own texts, our sources do not have to be either neutral or particularly objective. Taken from a random film article, than on Batman (1989), we are actually quoting Roger Ebert in his opinion that the film is "a triumph of design" but lacks substance and has an indifferent plot. He is quoted because his opinion is/was considered notable. The main problem with the source for this documentary is that it describes in detail the writer's opinion about the Democratic Party and its history (which to be honest is rather embarrassing) but only briefly covers the film itself, and it is unclear whether the text is either notable or reliable. That is why I was trying to find out what kind of a source Communities Digital News is. Are they a notable/reliable publication, a partisan source, a random online publication, or something else? We usually address such matters in the Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but I could not find a recent discussion on this particular source. Dimadick (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Background?
Why is there a "Background" heading at all? It's about De Souza's other films, talking them up with totally uncritical praise "becoming the highest-grossing documentary in the United States in 2014", etc. If that stuff should be anywhere, it's maybe in an article about De Souza. I'll delete it, but I'm sure the people who put it there will revert it immediately. 202.81.248.137 (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The section is not uncritical praise. It is truth. Regardless of what your political views are, you have to admit that D'Souza's documentaries performed very well. "Becoming the highest-grossing documentary in the United States in 2014" is not POV if it actually happened, which it did. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure, but what does any of that have to do with this article? Does knowing that D'Souza's previous work did well financially help our readers understand this subject? Also, even a true statement can be POV if it only presents positive truths and omits negative truths. Would you also be OK with the background talking about how widely criticized D'Souza's previous work was? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Someguy1221 here. I've shrunken the discussion of his past films so that we briefly note them in a sentence and move on. Sure, we can mention that D'Souza has produced other political documentaries before. But I see no reason to detail the financials of his past films in this article. Those details belong on the respective pages for those other films, and perhaps D'Souza's biographical article.
 * (For the record, I also agree that including the financial details for his earlier films &mdash; but no other information, like the fact that those other films were poorly reviewed &mdash; does come across as promotional and randomly selected.) Neutralitytalk 21:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If most editors oppose keeping this info, then I will not fight for it. However, I added a short summary of the America film for consistency (Neutrality kept the summary for Obama's America). Also, better refs could have been cited than a movie review. I will note that while professional film critics negatively reviewed the film, the audiences enjoyed it very much (at least for America; see the main article for citations). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm fine with that. Thanks. One thing: You know that the Washington Times piece is a review, too, right? (It's labeled "Analysis/Opinion" by "Andrew E. Harrod ... a freelance writer and a fellow with the Lawfare Project."). Not sure how that is any better than a professional review in the Washington Post. Neutralitytalk 22:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Good point. I removed it. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Neutralitytalk 22:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda
There is a consensus that if a film is called "propaganda" by reliable film reviewer, then that is its genre (or at least one of them; there can be others too), unless another reliable source can be found saying the film is "not propaganda." It's simply going by what the sources say. See closed discussions on this page. -R. fiend (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Film critics aren't historians, but ok. "Can we pretty please call it propaganda.  Serious face.Jawz101 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

These editor notes tell us, for the historical record, far more about the nature of Wikipedia than about this documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.93.230 (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)