Template:Did you know nominations/To Live for the Masses


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 22:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

To Live for the Masses

 * ... that when the Philippine documentary To Live for the Masses was banned for public exhibition in 2006, its producers nonetheless attempted to distribute it as widely as they could?
 * Reviewed: Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania

Created by Sky Harbor (talk). Self nominated at 01:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg There are a few things to be done before this can be featured. 1) QPQ review 2) I think the hook's English could be improved 3) the article doesn't clearly support the hook; ie. it's not explain whether the X or XXX rating would ban the film from public execution. And "as widely as they could" is OR, and disputable; the best way to screen a documentary would be to release it on the net under a free license, something that doesn't seem to have been considered at all. 4) The article suffers from WP:WEASEL, with "with some comparing"... "Some have claimed". 5) As such, I think that a new hook is needed, one that is clearly based on references and sentences without "some claiming" and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, . I have just arrived in Los Angeles, so I need time to adjust, but I do intend to work on these issues within the week or so. -- Sky Harbor  ( talk ) 06:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg It's been more than three weeks since this was last reviewed, but no improvements have been made to the article. Unfortunately, the nominator has not logged since the above comment. Fuebaey (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do apologize for this; I just started a new job. I'm on the page right now making improvements to it. :) -- Sky Harbor  ( talk ) 02:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, just an update: I attributed a sentence that was lacking who said it, and I clarified another sentence that was questioned so that it would be clearer on the article's context. I am working on my QPQ and possibly a second hook.  Happy Chinese New Year, everyone! :) -- Sky Harbor  ( talk ) 09:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I inserted Philippine into the hook to add context. EEng (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Piotrus, it would appear that the various things you mentioned in your initial review have been worked on and perhaps dealt with, including a QPQ and edited hook. Can you please check to see where the nomination now stands? If, after nearly two months, you're no longer interested in continuing, please let us know and I'll convert this into a call for a new reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am afraid issues 3) and 4) ares till unaddressed. Perhaps a second reviewer with a second opinion would help here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just removed the unnecessary sentence that was the proximate cause of 4). 3) does still need to be addressed, and Sky Harbor has said that a new hook is forthcoming (I agree that the current one is problematic); as far as I can tell, the only distribution was an online file of the documentary at Estrada's official website and some copies of the legally unsellable VCD and DVD that were made available by that courtmartialed lieutenant. I'd like to propose an alternate hook that I think will be quite effective:
 * ALT1: ... that the Philippine documentary To Live for the Masses on the life of former president Joseph Estrada was initially given an "XXX" rating by the MTCRB, and was banned from public exhibition?
 * I've added a phrase to the article (covered by the sentence's existing source) that should cover the concerns in 3) for this hook. Piotrus, what do you think? (I like the initial "XXX" rating better than the final "X" rating, though both prevented broadcast, showings, or video sale.) I don't see the need for a second reviewer; your objections have been appropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope I am not being blind, but which part of the article supports the claim that either of those ratings equals "banned from public exhibition"? I see "unfit for public viewing", and this is not the same. (Could be read as - not ok for cinames, ok for individual viewing, for example). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , the source is clear that the 'XXX' rating came first, followed by the 'X' rating, and those two ratings, whether separately or together, have the effect of banning the film from public exhibition. In the Philippines, being banned from public exhibution and being unfit for public viewing are read the same way, with the latter being implied as being equivalent to the former because when a film is given an 'X' rating, it implies that no cinema in the Philippines and no broadcaster in the Philippines can show the film (specifically elaborated on here).  Private viewing, however, is a completely different matter if one manages to get their hands on the film, as distribution of this particular film was also prohibited.


 * That being said, should I still come up with an alternate hook? 's hook is perfectly fine, if I were to be asked. -- Sky Harbor  ( talk ) 02:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I did just change the phrase from "unfit for public viewing" (used by FN5) to use the "public exhibition" prohibition (from FN4). I think that should address Piotrus's concerns regarding hook support. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I think the new hook is probably fine, but I will note that Movie and Television Review and Classification Board doesn't even mention an XXX rating. It is mentioned in, but can we be sure it is not a journalist error? If it can be confirmed that the XXX rating exists in the Philippines, I am ok with GTGing this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , FN15 also states that the initial rating was XXX and the second was X. I think if two distinct reliable sources say that XXX was assigned on the first review, then it should take precedence over what is effectively an uncited list of movie ratings in the Wikipedia article on the MTRCB. The X rating from the second review less than a week later still meant that the film could not be broadcast or shown. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Well, if you feel it's fine, then I am ok with GTG this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)