Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Not My Life/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC).

Not My Life

 * Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a 2011 American independent documentary film about human trafficking and contemporary slavery. The article received a copyedit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, and was later promoted to good article status. The people who made the documentary have been very generous with sharing production images, and I believe the article is now feature-worthy. Neelix (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment from EddieHugh
As a first step, please reduce the quantity of wikilinks. I count 18 in the first para that could be removed without any likely reader suffering. EddieHugh (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the recommendation, EddieHugh! I have gone through the article and removed 57 wikilinks that might be considered superfluous. I assume that 13 of the 18 links you count in the first paragraph are the country names. Please correct me if I am wrong. These links are not to the articles about the countries themselves, but rather to the articles about human trafficking in those respective countries, which I think directly relevant to the subject of this article. Do you disagree? I would prefer retain these specific links, but I am willing to remove them if consensus is in favour of it. Please let me know if there are any remaining wikilinks you think unnecessary, or if you have any further recommendations with respect to the article. Neelix (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a start, but there are still lots that just don't need to be there, as they're well known (e.g., New York City, New York, Americans, United States, child abuse, brothel) or self-explanatory even on the off chance that a reader doesn't know the term (e.g., investigative journalist, international economics, international security, international health, addicted to sex, sex slaves). See what other people suggest; to me, a sea of blue in the lead, especially of links to things that I (think that I) know about, is off-putting. EddieHugh (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have gone through the article again and removed more wikilinks, including all of the ones you mention except the one to Sexual slavery, because sexual slavery is one of the main topics discussed in the film. Again, I am certainly willing to remove this and other links if there is consensus to do so. Please let me know if you feel that the wikilinks should be diminished further. Neelix (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Support from 1ST7
Support. The article appears to meet the FA criteria—it is well-written, with no typos or grammar errors as far as I can tell; everything is well-sourced, with no dead links; and the subject is covered comprehensively and in a neutral manner. Regarding the wikilinks, I would recommend not linking to any article more than once. "Death by burning" is linked twice in the first paragraph of the interviews section, and a number of the terms, individuals, and organizations are linked two or three times throughout the article. However, after reading over FA criteria, I don't believe that the linking disqualifies the article from meeting FA standards. --1ST7 (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your support, 1ST7! I have removed the duplicated link to Death by burning. Using the "Highlight duplicate links" tool, I don't see any other duplicated links, unless you count links in image captions, which I believe are supposed to be included even if they also appear in the body text, but please correct me if I am incorrect on this point. I greatly appreciate your encouragement with respect to the article. Neelix (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! Most of the links I was referring to are in the lead, and then linked again later in the article, and sometimes in the image captions as well. I was under the impression that terms that are linked in the lead don't need to be linked again later in the article, but, while reading Manual of Style/Linking, I found this sentence: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." So you are correct about duplicates being fine when they are in the lead or the image captions. Best of luck with the rest of the FA review! --1ST7 (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Support from Cliftonian
After thoroughly reviewing the article I'm comfortable now supporting it for FA status. Well done David on another fine piece of work! —Cliftonian (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria
Image review
 * Would suggest either expanding the lead image caption or removing it entirely - just "poster" doesn't add much
 * File:Antoniomariacosta-200.jpg: source link returns "authorization required" error. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the image review, Nikkimaria! I have removed the lead image caption and replaced the image of Antonio Maria Costa with one from the Commons. Please let me know if there are any remaining issues with the images, or if you have any other recommendations regarding the article. Neelix (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Iztwoz

 * In Live footage - talibes are referred to as children and photo shows boys and girls but entry defines them as boys. Iztwoz (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contributing to the discussion, Iztwoz! Why do you believe that there are girls in the photo? As far as I can tell, all six children in the photo are boys, as is indicated both in the article and in the image description at the Commons. Neelix (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It was very late when I looked at article! I have since changed children to schoolboys. Iztwoz (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that; it makes the situation clearer. Do you have any remaining concerns regarding the article's quality, Iztwoz? Neelix (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article looks fine, to me - though I would support Blue Rasberry's sentiments. Iztwoz (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
Comments – This is a fine article, and I feel mean for raising petty drafting points, but I think I must comment on two matters. First, there is some doubt whether the text uses English or American spelling. One might expect the latter, given that the article is about an American film, but we have Anglicisms such as "labour", "Programmes" (though possibly in a job title this is prescribed) and "organisation". If, per contra, English spelling is intended, we have "installment", "center", "traveled" and "counseling", that need changing. In either case, "readded" could do with a hyphen to help the reader, and the phrase "each and every one of us", is usual, rather than "each and everyone of us". (That's in a quote, but it's a report of a speech, and I think you are liberty to render it in orthodox form.) "Denialism" was new to me (and the Oxford English Dictionary hasn't heard of it) but I see Wikipedia has an article on it, and so I suppose it must be allowed.

Secondly, it is a matter of interpretation of WP:OVERLINK, but to my eye there are too many links to ordinary words and phrases that need not be linked, such as "documentary film", "slavery", "social justice", "incest", "burned to death", "buried alive", "prostituted", "trafficking in drugs", "feature film", "film crew", "and sexually assaulted". –  Tim riley  talk    08:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate your review of the article, Tim. I am Canadian and, because Canadian English matches British English in some ways and American English in others, that is probably why you are seeing elements of both in the article. I agree that an article about an American film should employ American English, so I have made the alterations accordingly. Please let me know if you spot any more non-American spellings. I have also gone through the article and removed all the wikilinks you mentioned, as well as a few others. The hyphen is now in "re-added" and the space is between "every one". Neelix (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good heavens! So sorry for my absent-minded, or perhaps beleaguered, English assumption that all non-BrEng variants are American. Remiss, and rather presumptuous, of me, and as far as I can see you are now wholly in AmEng. Very happy to support this moving and well-researched article. Meets all the FA criteria, in my opinion. –  Tim riley  talk    20:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for opinion from expert
This article draws so heavily from a single paper that I think it would be an omission to promote this article without asking the author of that paper if she would like to review and comment upon this article. How would anyone feel about emailing Nancy Keefe Rhodes and seeing if she has anything to say? Has anyone already done this? Would it be helpful if I sent her an email asking for her to comment?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is either necessary or desirable: there are 24 citations to the Rhodes work out of a total of 57 citations. This proportion of references to a principal source seems to me well within the bounds of normal practice. For some subjects there may be only one or two main works of reference to go to. One casts one's net as widely as possible, and it looks to me (as a non-expert on the subject) that the net has duly been so cast. That is not to say of course that the comments of Ms Rhodes would be unwelcome: far from it, but as an individual contributor like any other, and emphatically not as some sort of censor or expert witness with ex cathedra authority. –  Tim riley  talk    11:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tim riley that Rhodes' comments (if she chooses to comment) should not be considered more valid than the published sources, including her own; Wikipedia bases the reliability its information on published sources, as opposed to projects like Citizendium that base their reliability on expert oversight. I have not heard of it being a practice on Wikipedia to contact authors of sources to verify the accuracy of what they wrote, or the accuracy of our interpretation of what they wrote. Nonetheless, everyone is welcome to contribute to FAC discussions, so if you choose to contact Rhodes and she is interested in participating in the discussion, I would be glad to engage with her comments. Neelix (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I just wrote to Rhodes. Her comments or opinions are not more valuable than anyone else's as all contributors are equal here, but if anyone could be said to be an expert on this topic than she would be one and I think it would not harm anything to ask for her opinion. She may or may not comment; who knows. Experts rarely do, but for example in medicine where I usually am, when we get an article to good article or featured article review we try to find an expert from outside Wikipedia to give a review, or in the worst case to at least decline an invitation to review. It is not that external review is necessary, but just that it is desirable to get review from anyone knowledgeable on a topic and in this case Rhodes seems like an ideal candidate to ask. If she were a Wikipedian it would be really strange to not ping her on her talk page about this, so it seemed prudent to me to ask her to review it in this case.
 * Please do not delay the rest of the featured article review; if this person comments then they can do it on their own time. I just invited them.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello all - Nancy Keefe Rhodes here. I completely agree that you don't need me to sign off on this or do your fact-checking for you or approve of it. I do appreciate the courtesy of Lane's invitation to comment generally. Here are some observations which I make freely & with the understanding that you don't have to act on any of them:

1. You list the article as being written in "American English," but this seems to refer mainly to spelling. British/Commonwealth punctuation, however, remains throughout. I see there has been a careful decision for this article to use American English since it's about an American film, & I like that you attended to some rationale for that. But in the US, we put the period or the comma inside the quotation marks. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I hadn't realized that this was a dialectical difference. I have moved all of the relevant commas inside the corresponding quotation marks except three; the first two cases are titles and the third is a single-word quotations. I believe that the comma remains outside the quotation marks in these cases even in American English, but please correct me if I am wrong on this point. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the punctuation still remains inside the quotation marks in those instances too. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has codified in its own manual of style at WP:MOSLQ a rule to use "logical quotations". Neelix is following this rule, which is contrary to traditional usage in any system. It is influenced by computer coding and says never to put anything in quotation marks that does not come from the original source. I know it seems odd but this system is being pushed to all younger people in tech fields. So Neelix, Nancy is right that this seems wrong to people over age 28, and Nancy, Neelix is following Wikipedia's manual of style. There are literally a thousand pages of arguments in Wikipedia style archives about this and consensus is to do it Neelix's way. I suggest dropping this issue or at least just referring it to the Guild of Copy Editors at the end of this.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind dropping it - we're surely not going to solve this issue for all time. Vast numbers of essays appear every fall, as English teachers & college professors contract a bad case of impending doom. I see that Wiki is widely misunderstood in the US as a chief culprit in degrading American students' grammar. I too have engaged in this & I won't in the future because I see that your process is very intentional & even where we disagree you do have rationales. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 2. Last line of the first graph - "denialism" is not a word I have encountered anywhere before & to me it's actually not specific, descriptive or helpful in this sentence. It is like the phrase "cutaneous condition" further down (referencing the skin diseases that the begging boys get from eating garbage) - why not just say "skin disease," which is the phrase that Bilheimer's film uses? Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the relevant sentences to avoid the obscure words "denialism" and "cutaneous". Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, great! Thanks. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

3. Second graph, in which there's a discussion of first version at the first public screening & a supposed "final cut" of the CNN broadcast. This is inaccurate. In fact there have been a number of re-edits since then, as Bilheimer has tinkered with the film several times to update it. There have been re-edits too since the first DVD release. I know this from having long-term correspondence with him & with his wife/producer Heidi, & because I've seen several versions of it (on a screener he sent me, in two separate public screenings here in the city where I live). The actual filming may have amounted to four years, but overall - with post-production & delays for fund-raising & additional shooting - "making the film" took closer to ten. I understand that this becomes confusing & space-consuming, but you might consider saying something a little beyond a first & final cut, something along the lines of "there have been several versions of the film due to updating & changing conditions." Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any published sources that contain this information? Information should not be included on Wikipedia articles unless a published source can be cited. I have removed the phrase "final cut" from the article so as to not make the claim that there is such a thing. Please let me know if you feel that this has solved the problem. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that solves the problem. To say that he has updated & re-cut the film a number of times is better than saying there are two versions. This is usually true in any film's life, but it's been a little more visible with this one because he has responded to conditions in the world & not just artistic decisions. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

4. More specifically re: that graph, the CNN & subsequent versions did remove direct reference to Suzanne Mubarak but NOT all references to the girls schools project that she sponsored while her husband remained in power in Egypt. I cover this in some detail in my piece because Bilheimer himself was conflicted about doing this. He felt that the regime change required deleting direct reference to her, but he felt also that she was sincere about this project & indeed that the schools themselves had largely been protected even after regime change because those communities knew the value of this project. So there IS footage in subsequent versions of the film of the schools & some of the students. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article states that much of the Egyptian mixed-sex school content was removed from the film, rather than saying that all of it was removed. What change would you like to see in this portion of the article? Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would state that material directly referencing Suzanne Mubarak was removed after the fall of the Mubarak regime so as to avoid having the coverage of the schools - which have by & large survived & still operate - appear dated. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added the information that most of the schools continue to exist, although I don't believe that your article states that it was specifically the references to Suzanne Mubarak that were removed, so I can't make that claim in the article. Please correct me if you did include this information in your article. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

5. Third graph - the first of a couple places where you assert that Bilheimer says most trafficking victims are children. I think this is not so, at least in terms of what he says. The UN may say most are kids (& it looks like that's your reference) but Bilheimer pretty much always links "most" with "women & children." This raises a difficulty for me with the piece overall - that often there seems to be little distinction between what actually happens on-screen within the film he made & other supporting material you cite about the topic at hand. I would generally like to see more such distinctions, even brief linking phrases to provide clarity such as, "although Bilheimer says X, UN material on this instead suggests Y." Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The UNAFF source states that "Not My Life zeroes in on the fact that the vast majority of trafficking and slavery victims are indeed children"; the source claims that the film is making this statement rather than UNAFF. I don't think that it would be accurate to ascribe the statement to the UN, and there would be no reason to include the statement in the article if it were only a statement by the UN and not a statement made in (or about) the film. Are we interpreting the UNAFF source differently? Where else do you see similar issues in the article? Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I think the UNAFF source mistakes what he said, or makes a mistake in emphasis. That's my hunch, without tracking the whole thing down. Bilheimer's habit is to reference "women & children" as major victims. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if you would like to pursue this or similar issues further. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

6. Under Themes, in the last two sentences of one graph you say that I expressed surprise that despite Bilheimer's background of social justice work with churches he doesn't proselytize. This is a tad misleading. First, I am not surprised that he doesn't, though I did indeed note that he doesn't. I'm not surprised because I have watched all of his films & he never proselytizes, so I would instead be surprised if he took that up suddenly with this film. I think he has consistently been careful not to & to allow the material to speak for itself in ways that are surely spiritual (if you want to see that) but which refrain from religious promotion. Since so many people doing anti-trafficking work are from faith communities, this takes work. Second, it might not be amiss to expand the quick summary that he has a social justice background in churches to a little more about - his first film (Cry of Reason) arose, for example, from the role his father played in dismantling South African apartheid through the intervention of the World Council of Churches (a fact he never mentions in that film at all, except in his one or two line dedication in the final credits). He & I talked at great length about this & about his conviction that he not use his special access to Beyers Naude & Desmond Tutu & lots of other people - people his father brought home when Bileheimer was still a boy - to seek any credit for his father in making the film. But others who are now starting to notice that Robert has made a body of work with his films might be interested in those roots. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed the statement that you were surprised; I agree that the source does not warrant this assertion. If you know of published sources that discuss Bilheimer's religious/spiritual background/practices, I would be glad to add a brief summary in a footnote at that juncture. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My published Stone Canoe article discusses these matters. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added the footnote. Please let me know if it is to your liking. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

7. Live footage - okay, this section is a problem. You do frame the film as beginning & ending with the fishing boy Etsy but in between, the order of what happens in the film is really scrambled. I can tell from reading this that whoever wrote it read a lot ABOUT this film, but frankly I cannot tell that you actually watched it from start to finish. I don't mean to be harsh here, but because it's a documentary doesn't mean that the sequence of scenes doesn't matter. It matters very much & I can tell you that Robert spent long months & sweat blood getting things in the right, balanced order. I teach in a university film studies program & every year I tell my students, "Please understand you must watch the film itself. Do not rely on Wikipedia summaries because they are often inaccurate & incomplete. I will know if that is what you did instead of actually watch the film." The structure of a documentary is absolutely as important as the structure of a feature fiction film, & this article does not treat the film's structure as if it matters. You do have lots of facts about trafficking included, but not a clear account of the film's content. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have watched this film from beginning to end, and I purposely did not structure this article chronologically because doing so makes it too difficult to communicate the relevant encyclopedic information about the film's content. Because this article is about a documentary film (as opposed to an article about a dramatic film, which would contain a "Plot" section ordered chronologically), I organized the encyclopedic information about the film's content by subject, dividing it into two sections: "Live footage" and "Interviews". I think that it would be unnecessarily (and very) confusing to readers for these two sections to be combined and presented chronologically, or for either of them to be reordered chronologically. The purpose of this section is not to give the plot of the film but to succinctly explain what kinds of live footage and interviews are included, and this purpose would be defeated if the sentences were split apart and reordered to convey the order of the film's scenes. As is common with documentary films, the scenes in Not My Life jump around from interview to interview and back again many times over, and the same is true of the live footage. These sections would be disproportionately large compared to the rest of the article if they were restructured in this way. There are too many individual scenes of differing forms all mingled together to mention them all in sequence. If there is consensus that the chronology of the film is important, I could add a chronological "Plot" section in addition to the "Live footage" and "Interviews" sections as a kind of overview, but I would recommend against doing so as such is not typical of articles about documentary films. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this would be a rationale for the way you have structured this section & it's better to learn this than go around feeling you didn't actually watch it. But my assertion is that this is not the best way to write about film. Documentary filmmakers struggle mightily with the mistaken & widespread notion that the most important thing about their films is the list of facts one can pull out of them & that HOW they put those facts together is not so important. It is a huge issue to documentary filmmakers. I teach film. I write about film. I am around filmmakers & have talked with many of them about this issue in the past decade. What you have done is essentially to dismantle the film & lay out all its parts, much like one might if you took apart your car's engine & laid out all its parts on a white sheet neatly. This will tell us about what parts there are & how many & what they look like individually, but it will not help us understand how the engine works or allow us to see it in action. As you note elsewhere, Bilheimer goes light on the statistics - he prefers the occasional telling statistic to a constant deluge of numbers & he places those statistics very strategically throughout his narrative. Documentary filmmaking has had something of a crisis in this past decade as many filmmakers have decided that simply arguing from the facts & flooding the screen with numbers is a bankrupt method. Seattle filmmaker Sandy Cioffi said to me with regard to her documentary, "Sweet Crude," about US oil companies in the Niger Delta, "The World Bank already knows these numbers, Nancy. What number can I put on the screen that will stop the killing & pollution? It is stories that move people." So if you simply throw out the narrative, you miss the power of the film & you also miss his intention in how he makes the film. It is missing a very fundamental point about why he made a movie instead of simply publishing research. You've clearly been on his website & perhaps you recall that he writes about what he sees as the power of film to reach people. You can actually honor that in how you describe the film's narrative. Overall that may be more important than lists. How will people actually USE this piece on Wiki? Will this provide footnotes for papers or will it move people to find the film & watch it? Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You know how to win me over, Nancy. Yes, I certainly want the article to be written in such a way that people will be likely to find and watch the film. Might you be able and willing to help me with this? Unfortunately, I don't own a copy of the film and neither does my local library; I moved to a different province this year and I watched the film last year by convincing my old public library to buy it. Would you be willing to tell me the order of the scenes? Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Neelix, as if on cue, I've gotten an email from World Wide Documentaries that a new revised edition of "Not My Life" is now available on DVD. So at this point neither one of us knows the final order of scenes! I will email that notice to you so you have it as documentation. I've read the article as it now stands on the link & I think it's quite quite good. You've addressed a number of my concerns very well & have elaborated the context enough so that, even though there is not actually a description of the narrative itself, it seems less a problem, & it makes sense to me to simply say that WWD has just announced a new cut. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for letting me know about this! I have requested a copy of the new cut from Worldwide Documentaries, and have added a new paragraph at the end of the "Release" section of the article to explain the nature of the 2014 editing of the film. Neelix (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

8. Here is one example of fuzzy content: Efrain Ortiz is NOT shown "getting sentenced." He's shown getting arrested & when that sequence concludes, there's a black screen with text reporting his sentence, but never actual footage of the courtroom. This is the kind of confusion that suggests someone read about the film but didn't watch it. However, later on there's a more detailed discussion of Efrain Ortiz & the rescuers, which to me almost seems written by someone else....? There are other examples of this. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your assumptions about the editors of this article are not correct; it might be more fruitful to stick to a discussion of article content. I have reworded the statement about Ortiz's sentencing according to your recommendation. I would be grateful if you would indicate the other examples to which you allude. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I regret that you have perhaps taken offense. Above you explained that you had indeed watched the film & why you chose a particular approach to describing what happens in the film. Certainly a legitimate approach although one I disagree with. But in this example - what's shown regarding Efrain Ortiz - it's simply that the writing isn't as clear as it might be & thereby misleads. One wants to avoid ever giving the impression that one hasn't watched the whole film. These little details that slip contribute to that. They are like editing mistakes in a movie - you notice on the screen that the prop people left that object on the set that isn't part of the film's "world" & stick out. You don't need me to give you a whole list - just go through & look for them & you'll see them. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am now far more familiar with the sources than with the film itself. I wrote the article soon after watching the film, but I don't have access to the film anymore, and I don't now remember enough of the film's intricacies to be able to identify parts the published reviewers might have gotten wrong. As with #7, I'm at your mercy on this one. I'm unlikely to be able to get my hands on a copy of the film before this featured article candidacy expires, so I'm only going to be able to fix any inaccuracies you point out to me. I hope I'm not coming across as being difficult; I greatly appreciate your feedback and I want to address your concerns to the greatest extent that I'm able. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See my response to #7. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

9. Angie & the Stormy Nights section about the US Midwest & truck stops. One of your reviewers asks a bunch of questions about when the FBI sting occurred, how old the girls were, how long ago, etc. All good questions. Again, careful watching of the actual film (plus through reading of my admittedly long-winded article) will answer them. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Most of this content was removed from the article as the section was disproportionately focused on Angie. Please let me know if there is any specific information about her that you feel should be included in the article. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's your call if you wish not to focus so much on her, but abbreviating your account of her led your own reviewers to ask about what was missing. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

10. Toward the end there's a section where you write that Desmond Tutu was interviewed because Bilheimer felt that audiences might need "pastoral counseling" & the cite is another article about the film. I have not looked that cite up & perhaps this is a paraphrase of someone else's conclusion, but I have to say it's bizarre & providing "pastoral counseling" for movie audiences via a cameo of Bishop Tutu would be nothing that Robert Bilheimer would be up to. It's so out in left field & so inconsistent with how he works & thinks, that I am moved to ask how did the writer(s) arrive at such an idea? Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The statement is taken from an interview with Bilheimer himself. Please feel free to listen to the interview and respond back if you feel that the article is not in line with the source. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's a direct quote, that's one thing. If it's a paraphrase of what an interviewer thought Bilheimer meant, then it's just wacky. Just my observation. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

11. Finally, I have passed over the paraphrase of my own article's discussion of the notion of "slavery" as something historical, over-with, & different from modern "human trafficking." It's a bit fuzzy as it appears in this article & could be improved. What I say is that holding onto the idea of "slavery" as in the past allows us not act urgently on human trafficking, which is different only in its form - in how this commerce is conducted now. There are actually more enslaved people now than ever before - 27-29 million so I am interested in why we resist this comparison. But something else happens if we see "slavery" as only in the past - we can use the visual symbols of slavery in exoticized ways to titillate. So we have nearly-naked Christine Ricci in chains, for example. I'm not saying that in this film she IS a slave - only that the filmmaker is drawing on the power & resonance of certain visual tropes to add punch to his film, bondage that takes advantage of both racial & sexual stereotypes. If it's "over," then the category "slavery" can be used for other things - like squatting in an empty house.

Something interesting that HAS started to happen, however - again, I cover this though you'd have to read the whole thing & just from the pages you cite I can see you skipped vast expanses because they probably seemed not immediately important - is that people ARE beginning to equate modern trafficking with slavery. I discuss how a number of anti-trafficking groups now use that language on their websites, how Congressional hearings have included movie stars like Will & Jada Pinkett Smith testifying while wearing tee-shirts that say "End slavery," Hillary Clinton's choice to announce annual international trafficking stats on the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation & explicitly pointing out the date, etc., etc. In my view, the growing recognition that trafficking = slavery is part of how come the quickening momentum to fight trafficking. And we can see this shift begin to happen during this years that Bilheimer was making & then releasing this film. I think it is part of the difference that his film makes. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there any way in particular that you feel the Wikipedia article should be changed to better reflect your article? I am unclear about what the issue is here that needs addressing. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the two paragraphs above summarize what I cover & discuss in much more detail in my article. Do you think that the sentence or two in the Wiki piece reflects that content & analysis? Upon reading the two graphs above (#11), did that clarify for you what I was trying to discuss & why it's important? A book I reference in my own piece is Kwame Anthony Appiah's "The Structure of Moral Revolutions," in which he discusses what broke the log-jam in certain pivotal social changes (the slave trade in UK, women's foot binding in China, & some others). Appiah says that it's actually NOT the amount of information we have - people in the UK already had all the numbers about the harm the transatlantic slave trade caused - that triggers change. It is deeper - how we see ourselves, in how we define the issue taht's a problem, whether we are the kind of people who do certain things with impunity. There is a shift that must occur before we will act that is not at all about the list of facts. What I noticed about Bilheimer's film is that he starts with a simple declaration that most people - when the film first screened - did not agree with. But over the last several years, this has begun to shift. Bilheimer has been a big part of re-defining what we think trafficking IS. And now that we know what it is, we will stop it. You know that Einstein quote, "The problems that we have to solve cannot be solved at the same level of thinking from which they were created"? It is not the whole inventory of facts that will change this - it's how we think about it. So that is why this framing of his film is important.Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reworded and added some information to this section in an attempt to better reflect the position you present in your article. Please let me know what you think of the changes. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Very nicely done! Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

12. If this sounds like one long harangue, it's really not. There are some places the piece can be clarified considerably. I would worry actually less about the abundance of footnotes about the facts in the film & more about getting a clear & coherent account of the film itself. Distinguish more clearly between what happens on screen & secondary sources instead of lumping them all together. These are small flaws. Overall I'm really pleased that you're going to run something about "Not My Life." And I appreciate having a chance to comment. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you commenting! I hope you will come back to respond to my responses. On Wikipedia, we don't aim to present truth, but rather all of the published opinions on a subject proportionally. That's why this article is much more focused on being true to the sources indicated in our footnotes rather than true to our own interpretations of the film. In this way, editing Wikipedia is very different from writing student papers or scholarly journal articles. Again, I would be grateful for any further comments you have about this article. I hope we will be able to reach mutually satisfactory conclusions on all twelve of your points above. Thank you for being so thorough! Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that, Neelix. But isn't the primary source of the article the film itself? By its nature film is a visual narrative form, which Bilheimer chose as the best medium for his statement. He didn't choose a legal brief in a lawsuit in the Hague, or a newspaper expose, or a UN position paper. He made a movie. Anyway, I've enjoyed this exchange & I appreciate having been able to have it. We actually don't have to agree on every single thing. For me there's a lot of freedom in knowing that I don't have to get you to do anything - I accept the terms that you don't need my approval & you guys will make your decisions, & I get to make comments & I won't be sore about the outcome. Many thanks! Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't take my comments prior to your commenting here to mean that I don't want your help in improving this article. I have greatly appreciated your willingness to review and continue discussing this article with us. I hope that you will consider helping me specifically with points 7 and 8 above; watching the film again anytime soon is beyond my means, but I do want the article to be of the highest possible quality. Thank you again for your help. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a fine piece. This has been hugely valuable for me too. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Your insights have proved invaluable; I would not, for example, have known about the new 2014 cut of the film otherwise. If you have any remaining concerns regarding the article, I would be glad to hear about them. Neelix (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only two remaining issues that have not been addressed are 1) the probable difference between the chronology of the "Live footage" section with the new 2014 version of the film, and 2) the clear distinction in that section between the information that is provided in the 2014 cut of the film and information that has been provided outside the film about the film's contents. I will not be able to address either of these issues until I receive a copy of the 2014 cut of the film, which I have requested from Worldwide Documentaries. I do not personally believe that either of these issues is significant enough to prevent the article from being featured, but I will understand if the community disagrees. I will attempt to retrieve a copy of the new version of the film as soon as possible, but I do not know how long it will take. Neelix (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Worldwide Documentaries is sending me two DVDs: one of the originally released version and one of the revised 2014 version. I intend to watch them when they arrive, and then make the relevant changes to the article, which I expect to be minor. Neelix (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: I just received the DVDs from Worldwide Documentaries. I should manage to watch them and make the relevant changes to the article by the end of the weekend. Neelix (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: I have watched the new version of the film and restructured the "Contents" section so that its chronology matches that of the film. I have also indicated which statements were made about the film rather than in the film. I believe that all of the concerns that have been raised have now been addressed. Neelix (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.