Talk:2016: Obama's America

URLs

As I am replacing all the references in this article, which are all bare URL's, it has become evident to me that someone has modified this article in a manner which is not accurate and appears to have an agenda. While none of the references had access dates, I suspect that the section

"Gerald R. Molen, who also produced Schindler's List, is an active member of the Mormon church, and has been deeply committed to the election of Republicans [I earlier eliminated the words past and present during the copy edit process]. He has contributed thousands of dollars to the election of Mitt Romney."

is not original to the article. In reference 5, Molen clearly states,

"I'm registered as a Republican but I look at myself more as an Independent. In some cases you don't get all the information if you do register as something other than a Republican or a Democrat. I've always prided myself on the fact that I look at all the candidates. I have voted for Democrats in the past. Right now I'm pretty much a fiscal hawk when it comes to conservative values."

That is in direct contradiction to the editor's assertion. Why is Molen's religion a factor in the article of his movie? And for that matter, why are political contributions relevant, if they have no relevance in the reviews of Michael Moore's movie articles, let alone Moore's main article? The only reference for that section is a listing of Molen's five political contributions from 2004 to 2011, which range from $300 to $2,300, assuming that they're even all the same person. His only contribution to Romney was $2,300 FOUR YEARS AGO!!! I think this is disgraceful. I plan on rewriting that section later tonight after I finish the URLs to help out with the DYK nomination. Anne (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone publicly claiming to be independent doesn't prove that they are. A lot of activists will say so when asked because they think it helps their credibility, while their actions and words about the issues clearly show a strong connection to one party. I think producing a film such as this one is strong evidence that someone is really a Republican. That said, you are right that the mention of his religion is inappropriate, and that comment exaggerates his financial support in the form of campaign contributions.--68.92.95.198 (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)--68.92.95.198 (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The same contributor also made misleading statements about opening weekend statistics.

"On its opening weekend, the film drew approximately $32,000, as opposed to Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" which earned over $23,000,000 on its opening weekend."

Anne (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

As Dinesh D'Souza notes, truth is more important than revenue. Yes, attendance will be important, and the 2016 movie opens with more screens each weekend in August. Comparisons should wait a week. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza giving George Hussein Onyango Obama $1,000 after movie for hospital bill

The RedPenOfDoom Does not think Dinesh D'Souza giving George Hussein Onyango Obama $1,000 as a out come of the film is news. Your thought. Telecine Guy 19:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza interviewed George Hussein Onyango Obama, the youngest half-brother of Barack Obama. George called Dinesh and asked for help, as his young son was sick and in a hospital. Dinesh sent him $1,000 to cover the medical bills. George was grateful and said: “Dinesh, you are like a brother to me.”

I am not quite grasping your comment, but no, I do not think it is appropriately sourced (it is self promotional content as "reported" by the individual it promotes and as recorded on a platform with shakey reputation for fact checking and accuracy and neutrality) nor even if it was appropriately sourced is it appropriate for this article which is supposed be about a movie. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The story of George Obama getting $1,000 from Dinesh D'Souza for his son in the hospital is very important, not for this article but for Dinesh D'Souza — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Critical Reception

The reception section cherry-picks reviews that were negative and then seeks to contrast this with conservative commentators, giving the impression that the critical reception was universally negative and that only conservative ideologues support the film. However, the film has a 57% at Rotten Tomatoes (based on only seven reviews though), and it should be noted that the overwhelming consensus, even among those who didn't like the film, was that it was not a "hatchet job," to quote the various critics, but a serious-minded attempt to state the conservative case against Obama. The film overall has had much better reception than previous conservative documentaries and there should be some attempt to separate critical reaction to the film from some of the critics' reviews that have simply decried the political positions apparent in it. Can anyone better incorporate the positive critical reception into his article please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.115.254 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I just removed the comment by Roger Ebert from this section. Noting that he hasn't reviewed the film because it wasn't showing near him seems pretty useless to me. Robofish (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Robofish. Non-reviews and reports of non-reviews are useless here. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

One more thing not represented in this article is that though there are low reviews among critics 45%, the reviews from the audience on rotten tomatoes is currently 81%. That's a huge discrepancy and the gap between movie goers and critics should be presented. RottenTomatoes 2016 Obama's America --Isaiah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.238.32.84 (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

uhh nope. wikipedia only reports professional reviewers. If there is a reliable source that talks about how the unwashed public has a completely different view than the sitters in the ivory towers, then we could include that. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Rotten tomatoes 2:35 PST 31 August 2012 , Reviews 23, Fresh 8, rotten 15, "tomatometer" 35%, [1] -- Robert Hambly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberthambly (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to the WP guideline on how we should report Critical reception and Audience reaction: Critical response --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There should be a clear separation between reviews from major professional movie reviewers and conservative political commentators and minor reviewers from websites and blogs, with emphasis given to the former. The current selection of reviews gives a good overview of the overall consensus of reviews: the movie was well made with good production value, but was preaching to the choir. - Maximusveritas (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with Citizen's ruling

This film would not have been legal to distribute if the Supreme Court had overturned the Citizens United decision. 67.149.196.50 (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

if you have a source that makes that claim, please provide it. otherwise we cannot include commentary and analysis that is solely our own. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate content from Daily Kos?

An IP editor has removed content from the Daily Kos under the reaon of "Section of opinion". Of course it is opinion, all commentary and reviews are opinion, and they are allowed if they are appropriate and appropriately sourced. The comment is appropriately sourced (ie verifiably cited), so the question is, is the Kos opinion appropriate to include. I did not find any other sources commenting on the racism in the trailer or I would have just reinserted it as representative of common interpretation.

Is there a community consensus about whether the Daily Kos and the poster tremayne [2] have a suitable standing and reputation in the areas of social commentary and race relations to be cited for their insight, or is this just a random view that does not merit inclusion? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. It's blatant race-baiting from one obscure blogger. It's also only about the trailer. This article is about the documentary, so the blogger's opinion of the trailer doesn't belong in this article anyway. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So the right-wing Breitbart is allowed and the easily as famous (and probably more so) Kos isn't? That's POV bias. --208.38.59.161 (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The guy writing for breitbart appears to have a regular column at BigHollywood and uses his real name. tremayne at the dailykos appears to be a blogger. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

oops - i missread. the diff i provided above was not about the Kos, but POVishly removing the WIDELY held overall review of the film and its potential impact. I have restored that per WP:NPOV needs to cover all aspects in the lead, not just the creators POV. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

comment by Beth Fouhy of AP should be removed

Here's a link to an article by Beth Fouhy about the issues the Republicans are "not addressing at their convention". [3] The article is being passed off as "news". The fact that every item she brings up is an Obama campaign talking point calculated to distract from the real issues of the campaign indicates that she is not a neutral and unbiased observer. Since she works for an organization that has pretensions of being unbiased but she clearly isn't, her comments about the D'Souza documentary should be removed. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not being passed off as news. It's presented as Fouhy giving her opinion on the movie just like all the other reviewers. How is it less valid than the opinion of John Fund, a conservative political commentator, who's also just mixed in that mess of a paragraph of review quotes? I do think the paragraph needs to be cut down or at least broken up into different paragraphs because it is just ugly right now. - Maximusveritas (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the Fouhy quote in our article, I was talking about the "news" article about the RNC that I linked to [4]. It's (or it was when I linked to it) on the AP website under the section "Latest News", "Politics", under the heading "AP Top Political News". You have a point about John Fund. Please provide a list of conservative film critics who write for the NYT, WaPo, AP, or LAT so we can post their reviews for "balance". --Kenatipo ^speak! 12:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

re the "mess of a paragraph of reviews" - the editing needs to be very careful NOT to be creating POV issues in the manner of describing and or grouping content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Weigel review

If you read the whole review , it is clear that the quote that was being used in this article is completely misleading. Weigel is a liberal who was largely negative towards the movie (calling the theory "Swiss-cheesed with logic holes", pointing out factual errors, and ending with "If you’re serious about re-arranging facts, hire a few actors.") and wrote that quote from the perspective of his conservative friend who was watching the movie. So to use that quote as if it represented his opinion towards the movie is downright dishonest if you actually read the review instead of just picking out the quote with no context. - Maximusveritas (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand the part where Weigel says "If you’re serious about re-arranging facts, hire a few actors." What was he trying to say there? I don't get it. I see what you mean about speaking in the voice of Joe Farah and that may make the first sentence we quote unusable, but the second sentence about Davis and pop and mom is just a statement of fact. Have you seen the movie? I have. --Kenatipo ^speak! 12:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I just re-read what Weigel said, and you're wrong. His statement that the theory was "Swiss-cheesed with logic holes" refers to the book and the Forbes article, not the movie. Weigel says, referring to conspiracy theories(?) in the book and article, "None of this makes it into 2016." The quote we used from Weigel was not "completely misleading". What Weigel calls "factual errors" are not factual errors at all, but debatable points. --Kenatipo ^speak! 13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My point in bringing up his criticisms was just that Weigel obviously strongly disagrees with the premise, so for him to call it "too good" is patently absurd. As far as the second part of the quote, while it may not be misleading to include it like the first part was, it is not really an opinion as to the movie's quality so much as a summation of some of the movie's plot, so it does not provide anything to the "Reception" section. With the way the section is bloated right now with all those quotes, it should really only be limited to reviews that provide actual backing for the "reception" the movie has received from critics. = Maximusveritas (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Who paid for it?

Wikipedia talk pages are not for talking about the subject of the article; they are for talking about the article itself. If you have questions about it's funding, find a forum somewhere. If you want to improve the article's coverage of the funding, propose changes with reliable sources.--v/r - TP 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Who provided the funding to make this political infomercial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.143.112 (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC) User talk:The Magnificent Clean-keeper While I may have not phrased the question to your satisfaction, it is a serious question. I am not alone in feeling that this is nothing more than a thinly veiled hit piece in a long format. I am asking if there are any references to the funding and would appreciate some input as to whether it is something that could or should be added to this article. Please do not remove this again without having the courtesy of explaining why. Simply citing WP:TPO is not enough when it gives dozens of different reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.143.112 (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC) If you have reliable sources that make such allegations please provide them. Your personal allegations have no place here and will be removed again per wp:TPO upon failure of showing mentioned sources.TMCk (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Strike out as I misread the comment.TMCk (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Per TPO "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:" These are some of the basic listed reasons for editing others comments and none of them apply here. 1. You don't have my permission. 2. It's not your personal talk page. 3. It is not prohibited material. 4. it is not a harmful post. It is not trolling. I am asking others if they feel including this information is valid. I am under no obligation to answer to you about reliable sources. Nothing I have said is substantially different from other discussions about this page. I am asking for sources and discussion. This is not the article, it is the talk page. "This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are *controversial*. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." 5. It is not off topic. If you don't like it take it to an administrator and ask for mediation. You do not own this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.137.99 (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC) My apologies. I misread your comment and thought you're talking about funding of the article. I should've paid more attention I guess.TMCk (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC) the initial funding of a film project is generally the responsibility of producer which is listed right there in the lead and in the production sections. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you. I saw that. The question would be to me, who did he raise the funds from? Can this be looked at as a political ad, maybe you could call it an an infomentary? Would the people who provided funding be notable if they were not the usual investors in movies as much as they were political operators. An example would be if the Koch brothers provided funding. I am new to this so humor me. I am asking if something like that would be relevant in this case? If so I would be inclined to research it further and look for reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.137.99 (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC) One of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia is that we are not political hacks. Nor are we investigative journalists digging in to find the pieces of the "real" story. We merely gather and present what the reliable sources say. I have looked at a lot of the stories and content out there about the film and no one that i have seen goes into the detail. -- The Red Pen of Doom 07:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC) to further expand - yes, if you find reliable sources that discuss the funding in more detail, you could bring them here. However, because the details of funding a project are generally non-encyclopedic in the article about the film, those details are rarely covered in film articles. And so the sources you provide with the "who" would also need to include encyclopedic information about "why" the specific details about funders are important for us to include. And it has to be the same source that provides details about the funding that says why - we cannot glomp two sources that are talking about different perspectives together to make an analysis that they do not explicitly make. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it could be interesting to the Article but hard to discover (costs and backers) and since it grossed four to five times the cost, it could have been private investors. Wait and see if it becomes interesting. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes rating

There is a marked difference between the cumulative 31 percent from movie critics and the 78 percent that actual viewers gave the film. This dichotomy reflects a liberal bias among movie reviewers, according to many people who reviewed the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.19.17 (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_response

Edit request on 8 September 2012

The "reception" section only includes favorable or neutral commentary from predominantly conservative sources. This is not a balanced entry. 74.220.65.132 (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Insertion request on 11 September 2012

The brand identity for "2016 Obama's America" was created by Art Director Michael Inks of MLi Design, Seattle (http://www.mlidesign.co). Mike was the sole marketing art director and designer on the project, who worked directly with John Sullivan, the film's director as well as marketing director. Together John and Mike developed the brand identity for the film including theater posters, web site, newspaper ads, official e-blasts and DVD packaging. Mike has also worked with Marketing Director George Lange to brand Ben Stein's "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed," the second top conservative documentary of all time in which John Sullivan was also a producer. Minkseattle (talk) 07:28, September 11, 2012‎

Not done for now: Not sure we want references that are e-mail addresses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)