Talk:The American Society of Magical Negroes

Reaction to the Trailer
Shouldn't this article mention the film's controversial trailer? Many mainstream news outlets are currently talking about it. 98.20.149.86 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm I don't know how "mainstream" you think Fox is. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Fox News Channel - which you refer to as 'Fox' - is conglomerate of national and international television channels and websites now headquartered in New York City. It is owned by Fox News Media, which itself is owned by the Fox Corporation. It is the most-watched cable network in the U.S. Fox Corp. deals primarily in the television broadcast, news, and sports broadcasting industries. Its assets include the Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox Television Stations, Fox News, Fox Business, Fox Sports, Tubi, and others. Its sister company, News Corp, incorporates newspaper interests and other media assets. By any definition, it's as 'mainstream' as CNN or the BBC. Hubertgrove (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the corporate lesson, User:Hubertgrove. I note that the article in question cites comments by "many commentators"--which quickly turn out to be social media comments by outlets like "conservative social media account MythinformedMKE", best known for spreading lies about queer theory and Black scholars, and *surprise* a conspiracy theory about how academia is structurally racist: against white people. How reliable Fox News is on this topic (the article is really bad, just read it) depends on which row you think this article fits in, "Politics and news" or not: see WP:RSP. "Mainstream"--this article presents only opinions by disgruntled social media characters from one particular side of the spectrum. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I helped you, User:Drmies. Who says the "many commentators" Fox apparently is citing are "spreading lies about queer theory and Black [sic] scholars" *and* "are best known" for this? Is it you? I'm sure you know OR is discouraged on Wikipedia, especially if unsubstantiated by reputable publications. Hubertgrove (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, . Feel free to tweak your snide remark after rereading my comment. I'm sure you will see, on a second reading, that I was taking about MythinformedMKE. And yes, "Black" with a capital B, like so many outlets do, and style guides recommend, these days. Your "sic" is telling. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Snide"? "Tweak"? What's wrong with you? I must direct you to WP:CIVIL)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_rude
 * Please don't talk to other people like this again. Hubertgrove (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's black with a lower case "b", you . 2A00:23C7:8908:9401:BA:475:6293:A0AA (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No criticism?
No mention that previews thus far can only be described as extremely racist? Mention of future dates as though they’ve already happened? Yeesh. 76.131.150.18 (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Racist against white people? Oh ok...  Mike  Allen   21:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please visit wikipedia entry for "racism". Read it carefully atleast two times. Please. 2A02:A312:C944:9F00:B4B6:801A:7BF2:4EAD (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  Mike  Allen   23:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. Read credible and reliable source then. Three times. Please. 2A02:A312:C944:9F00:B0F4:DC87:113:A2C3 (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean racial prejudice.  Not racism.  Pick up a book.  Mike   Allen   19:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No - racism, you 2A00:23C7:8908:9401:BA:475:6293:A0AA (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * please visit wikipedia entry for "marxism". read it carefully at least two times. please. 2604:2D80:E58D:CB00:A1B6:8004:A2C6:84D7 (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Article seems to be vandalized
The films description as "extremely anti-white racist movie" seems like deliberate vandalism. Maybe this page needs to be protected for a while? 2A01:599:B25:F978:92E:13E6:5D4:90D6 (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Plot
,, I had tried to summarize the plot down from 700 words because I did not think it needed to be at the max of WikiProject Film's suggested range of 400-700 words. The article body besides the "Plot" section is only 522 words. WP:PLOT, which is policy, says, "Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works" (emphasis mine).

The range of 400-700 words is most appropriate for an article that has a full body of non-plot text. If the article is not treating the creative work in a full encyclopedic manner, then a plot summary should be even more minimal. The more the article covers the topic, the more relatively concise the plot summary will be compared to the rest of the article body. Right now, the plot summary is roughly equal length to the rest of the article body, which isn't following policy. The core need for a plot summary is context to understand other details, such as providing story details to understand why the critics said what they did about the film.

It's worth remembering, too, that any film article's plot summary is subject to detail creep, sometimes even being rewritten completely by someone a few years by now, rendering this debate moot. What's more important for Wikipedia is to contribute non-plot text because that has far more staying power than the plot summary, which can be described in near-infinite ways. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Maybe; but anyway, MikeAllen has restored the error you made (respectfully speaking) at the end of the article, where you say Aren finds out about Lizzie and SOSWAG and that leads to further getting along, which is not only false, but is the exact opposite of what actually happens. Look at what *the director* Klbi Libii says at https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/the-american-society-of-magical-negroes-ending-explained, and also at this, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/WMG/TheAmericanSocietyOfMagicalNegroes. This proves me right, and I've added/restored the correction. Unless you want to call Kobi Libii wrong...
 * MikeAllen even got rid of the wordcounter I put there, which makes his reversion look like spite rather than anything professional or decent? I restored the wordcounter -- which you will champion, if you care about word length. Have a great day. John315 (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Structure
MOS:FILM explicitly says, "There is no defined order of the sections," and there is no requirement in any policy or guideline for every film article to have the exact same set of section and subsection headings all over the place. In this case, the point of the "Theatrical release" section is to say in one place when the film was released and how it did in that timeframe. Otherwise, a reader has to look at two different sections to connect the context. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

To expand on this, MOS:OVERSECTION is also a problem, "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose." Just because one may see what seems to be a defined order across multiple articles does not mean it is community-endorsed. It is essentially because certain editors go around articles of recently-released films and change the sections to their preferred order. Such bare-bones "Release" sections with only release dates is not a best practice as evidenced by MOS:OVERSECTION and the disconnect from any directly-related box office content. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

International
Regarding the film infobox, to use "International" for Universal's distribution is to imply that the US is not part of the "international" scope and thus makes Wikipedia's voice in this article improperly US-centered. It is a clearer delineation to say "US" and "outside US". Avoiding this label (and "domestic") is stated in MOS:FILMBOXOFFICE. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

New York Times article
The New York Times published the article "Black Satire Is Having Its Hollywood Moment, but Something Is Missing" here which covers this film among several others. It could perhaps be part of a "Social commentary" section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Social commentary
I started a "Social commentary" section. It is a little quote-heavy and perhaps could use paraphrasing. (EDIT: Paraphrasing completed.) I tried to cover the pre-release commentary as well as the post-release commentary from The New York Times for an all-around approach. Starting this thread for discussion if needed. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Critical reception
An editor keeps trying to use the templates RT prose and Metacritic film prose even though MOS:FILM says, "There is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, and the use of prevalent summary styles or templates is not required." These templates are problematic in dictating a universal way to report the aggregate scores when zero consensus supports that writing. We have to remember that not everyone is a movie buff that follows these websites closely and don't know how Rotten Tomatoes works, which is only positive or negative. In this case, the film clearly has a "mixed" reception, so to lead with RT is additionally problematic (especially when the average score of 4.8 is more reflective of the critical reception than the simplistic 26% score). Again, there is no consensus to use these templates universally, and they shouldn't be used "just because" and should actually avoided as explained above. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Rotten Tomatoes critics consensus, there is not "no reason" to mention when they reported what critics thought. Obviously, they never update the consensus as more reviews come in, and Wikipedia is not required to simulate Rotten Tomatoes in every sense and to only use the available data to accurately report the critical reception. For a more egregious example, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever got a critical consensus after 127 reviews and now has 447 reviews with the consensus obviously not being updated. We need to be mindful of not being shills for commercial websites whose purpose is to appeal to moviegoers. Wikipedia should instead take what is useful and leave the rest. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)