Talk:Selma (film)

Selma, Lord, Selma

Selma, Lord, Selma, a Disney film broadcast on ABC in 1999, precedes this 'in production' film. I began making changes to the article without realizing another editor was preparing it for 'Did you know?' - Neonorange (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Neonorange: Will you please stop deleting the material I'm trying to add, I'm finding all development history of the film so it could reach the level of DYK. Either help me or please stop removing contents. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 07:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be glad to help you. But I have only deleted information that was outdated and contradicted by newer information. My edit summaries indicated this.There are certainly more production details (up-to-date details) that you can find at ref "Hollywood 2014". The material was not only outdated, but the style was not encyclopedic, but rather that of the source material, and close paraphrase. There is more than enough material to make a strong article. It's a good thing that you've started this article. However I see no reason I should not help make it better. (For instance, there are several newspaper article about the reaction to the production in Selma and Marietta.) - Neonorange (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to make approach to every up-to-date news of the film, but I started adding old information about the development and eventually it'll be updated to the latest information. Now let me add all the information and then I'll let you or someone other to copy-edit the article. We good? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Completely. Just be sure to find another hook. In fact, you can expand this article with a sentence or two about the previous film, Selma, Lord, Selma based around the same events. Also there have been articles discussing the role of the success of The Butler clearing the way for Selma. Those articles would also help flesh out the details of the twists and turns the Selma project went through. As you have now restored the "Production" section, it just reads wrong, is outdated, and incomplete. If you are going to start that far back, you need to show at least a few interim steps (and choose a different section title: 'Production' is the actual work process of, well, producing the film. The path to that point is a different struggle. [Any of these areas can help you get to 1500. I understand if you don't want anyone adding content now. If you wish, however, I will post some sources here]. - Neonorange (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You understood me wrong here, I would like if you want to expand the article but I only want to add the complete information from 2009 till now. That's why I requested you to stop for a while if you don't mind, otherwise it is a free website, you can argue with me or report me :). I hope that will not be needed, thanks for the help, I'll add info about previous film and will change the hook, you will have to suggest me one. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick reply; longer later. How about - Did you know that... Selma (film) is the second film based around Bloody Sunday? I sort of like the DYK hooks that are unexpected. Certainly Bloody Sunday jumps out. The link leads to a fuller explanation. I guess that adding 'and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.' might broaden appeal, if the character count allows. - Neonorange (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a paragraph or two here: The Washington Post,"King may conquer a screen deferred", August 24, 2011, Ann Hornaday, from which a sentence about the road to production might be teased. Do you have access? No, don't want to open that can of worms. - Neonorange (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, now that you've opened that can of worms, here's a phrase from the Washington Post article posted above: "Deadline Hollywood reporter Mike Fleming revealed that Andrew Young...but that, like "Selma," which he also read, as well as other projects, he felt "Memphis" distorted and sensationalized King's legacy." The ellipsis is almost two paragraphs that are mainly about Menphis, another MLK centered project that fell through, and critical comments by Young.

Now that's a topic for a Wikipedia article, the difficulty in bringing MLK centered films to the screen; a topic full of minefields.

I guess you've got the length now; I like your redone sections. Hope this gets picked for DYK - Neonorange (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It'll be picked for sure, just need a good hook for now. How about ... that Selma (film) is the second film based around Turnaround Tuesday, 2nd day of 1965 voting rights marches led by Martin Luther King, Jr.? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What'cha want to bet the dramatic high points in the film, at least around the three marches, are the first and third? I can see a spiritual high point occurring at the Selma city line in the second march, but the attack that ended the first march and the How Long, Not Long MLK speech at the Montgomery end of the third has my vote. We'll see when the film comes out. And I guess that LBJ is gonna get his due, so there'll be some arm-twisting and a phone call or two with him. "How Long, Not Long"; it turned out to be shorter and longer than anyone thought. I will try to contribute to this article after the DYK dust settles. Enjoyed talking with you. - Neonorange (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It was really an honor talking with you, you seem to have a great information and knowledge. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope to work with you again. As to my knowledge, for this subject, it helps to live in Atlanta. If I had seen this article just a bit earlier, perhaps I could have taken some location shots! The Edmund Pettus Bridge is just at two and a half hour drive for me, but I doubt I'll make the shoot in Selma. - Neonorange (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Please forgive me for posting Bloody Tuesday rather than Bloody Sunday. Must have been asleep on that one, thinking about 'Turnaround Tuesday' while typing. So my suggested hook should have been DYK...Selma (film) is the second film based around Bloody Sunday? - Neonorange (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Then bring some photos from the set to the article, production will be on the bridge on June 23. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 09:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Selma to Montgomery marches; a note

The first of these three marches, known as Bloody Sunday, was led by SNCC chairman John Lewis and SCLC field staff director Hosea Williams. The second, known as Turnaround Tuesday, was lead by Martin Luther King, Jr., the head of SCLC. At the conclusion of the third march, Dr. King stood on the steps of the Alabama state capitol in Montgomery and delivered his How Long, Not Long speech. - Neonorange (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Just some historical corrections. After James Bevel initiated the march he organized its preparation. Very few people were showing up the evening before the march to take part, and Dr. King and Andrew Young were, according to Bevel, on the phone with him all night asking him to call it off. Bevel, who acted on his own in the movement without veto power from King or SCLC (even though he was SCLC's Director of Direct Action) told them that he was letting it go forward, and that God would provide whatever happened to happen. "Bloody Sunday" happened, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act happened. On a quirk of history, Bevel lost a coin toss with Hosea Williams and others to decide who would stay behind to man the SCLC command center in the headquarters church, and he did not march to the conclusion of the first march (it stepped off from the church and the street in front of the church). Quite a few people manned the front lines when the march reached the bottom of the bridge (see picture of the very long front two lines at the bottom of the Pettus bridge before the troopers attacked, with everyone else marching two by two behind them). Among them were John Lewis, Hosea Williams, and Amelia Boynton, and the troopers were probably licking their lips in anticipation seeing those movement leaders in Selma standing a foot away from their batons. ---- The second march was ceremonial, just to stop and pray, because SCLC knew that the court order allowing them to march would be coming down at any time. The third march was largely ceremonial and celebratory, as Lyndon Johnson had already gone to Congress and demanded that they pass a Voting Rights Act. The first march, the movement action pictured and created by Bevel, was the one that gained the country and the congress to give full voting rights to all of its of-age citizens. Randy Kryn 14:42 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Country of origin

Defining the country of origin for a film is not a simple task. See Template:Infobox film and the explanation there that points to the European Lumiere Project at http://lumiere.obs.coe.int/web/sources/astuces.html. - Neonorange (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Common confirmation

All the sources about Common's role in the film that I could find say he's in negotiation to sign on, but since the shooting has started I'm assuming his role has been confirmed. Does anyone have a source for his confirmation? And good to meet the fellow editors. By the way, on your DYK, Dr. King wasn't at the first march, "Bloody Sunday", and led the third. The second march wasn't really a march, because the organizers knew that they would not attempt to cross the Pettus bridge line but would just kneel and pray and turn around (their judicial permission to march had not yet come down, but they knew it would be approved), and by the time the third march set off it already had the support of Lyndon Johnson and the emotional backing of much of the U.S. nation. Randy Kryn 20:11 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This looks like Common is part of the cast. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It does (unless he's just hanging around at the dinner), thanks. Since there are several other characters and actors mentioned in the article (playing James Orange, Diane Nash, Ralph Abernathy, and others) I'll leave it to others to reference it (or a similar source) properly. Quick work! Thanks again. Randy Kryn 21:00 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm still working on the all cast members, I'll left no one behind. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception of the 1999 film Selma, Lord, Selma; any place for in this article"

In looking for material on the 1999 film built around the same events of Selma, a found a Boston Globe article that is pretty negative, except for the work of the actor playing Martin Luther King. Here's a snippet: ...never rises above the level of a Classic Comics version ..." and "...so neuters and simplifies historical events ..." Boston Globe, January 16, 1999, by John Koch, Globe Staff, "Selma tale oversimplifies rights drama", retrieved June 5, 2014 via HighBeam.com . I think some material about the earlier film could find a place in this article, but the quotes above are very harsh. I'll look for additional reviews in hope of finding some balancing material, if possible. - Neonorange (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it could go under the "Previous film" section. Create a section under the "Filming" section and add the data. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will look for at least one other source, and then add the new section as you suggest. - Neonorange (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Producers; listing order

I wonder if a chronological order for producers might be more meaningful than alphabetical order. Specifically, the first producer attached to the film, still functioning as a producer, should come first, and so on. (Considering that proper sources could be found, and original research could be avoided. - Neonorange (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

What about following the name as ordered here? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this order will work for me, which is given at Paramount's site. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be

Brad Pitt, Dede Gardner and Jeremy Kleiner will produce through their Plan B banner

Christian Colson through his Cloud Eight Films

and Oprah Winfrey through her Harpo Films.

Ava DuVernay, Paul Garnes, Cameron McCracken and Nan Morales are executive producing.

According to Template:Infobox film, the 'producer' parameters do not include executive producers. That makes the list of producers, following the order from the Paramount press release: Brad Pitt, Dede Gardner, Jeremy Gardner (all from Plan B); Christian Colson (Cloud Eight); and Oprah Winfrey (Harpo Films). DuVernay, Garnes, McCracken, and Morales don't go in the infobox. And five happens to be the limit for number of producers who can win the Oscar for best picture. - Neonorange (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik. The Paramount press release you pointed to is the best source we are likely to have until the credits roll. Now the list at studio= looks out of whack. - Neonorange (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's not correct to put these production companies in the "Studio" field. I know it is common to do that, but a production company is not the same thing as a studio. Really, the studio is Paramount Pictures. At Edge of Tomorrow (film), the studio is Warner Bros. Pictures, so we only use the "Studio" field and do not have to use the "Distributed by" field since in most cases, major film studios distribute. There's a discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#Production company where I proposed adding a "Production company" field, but a couple of others prefer to just change "Studio" to "Production company". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

What you've brought up makes sense. So make the studio= parameter Paramount Pictures? How about the five producers with three production companies? Could I add the companies in the 'producer=' list? To display as below?

• Brad Pitt, Plan B
• Dede Gardner, Plan B
• Jeremy Kleiner, Plan B
• Christian Colson, Cloud Eight
• Oprah Winfrey, Harpo Productions

Now that I think about it, I'll just boldly do. It seems right.

- Neonorange (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think if it is the best idea. I've never seen this in the infobox. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly can't hurt, and is certainly precise; and as accurate as we can be at the moment; it reflects the language in the only source we have. After the film is released there could be different language. However, please read the section I've added below.- Neonorange (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

What next?

At this date, the Selma project has only just begun principal photography. As the release date approaches, significant coverage should appear in reliable sources, and at release critical commentary will be available. I think the section I added on earlier film portrayals of the Selma to Montgomery marches should be removed and possibly added to that article. This article needs tightening. Perhaps the infobox is overly detailed. The article is long enough for DYK; let's work on the language, and consider removing outdated casting material. - Neonorange (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Neonorange: No, article's just fine, it only needs the information which we have given in the hooks. Article doesn't have that type of information which have given in the three hooks, so please choose a good hook and add it's data to the lead section of the film article. Please do it hurry or the nomination will be rejected, thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I've given it my best shot. I only returned to my computer a few hours ago; I hope my quick changes are enough. I've never worked on a DYK article before, so I may not completely understand the hook requirements. I will, of course, be happy to work with you on this article (or others) in the future, but for now, I think it's up to you. I can answer questions, but I don't think I should make any more edits. - Neonorange (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Selma accepted for DYK

The hook, " ... that the events of Bloody Sunday are being recreated at the Edmund Pettus Bridge for the upcoming film Selma?", for Selma, is now in Template:Did you know/Queue at 5.3 prep area 3. Thank you Captain, Randy, and Strike. This article turned out to be more complicated that it seemed, carrying as it did, quite a bit of history. - Neonorange (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you Neonorange, you helped along. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Selma (film)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Selma (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Miller":

• From Voting Rights Act of 1965: Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995).
• From Civil Rights Act of 1957: James A. Miller, "An inside look at Eisenhower's civil rights record", The Boston Globe at boston.com, 21 November 2007, accessed 28 October 2011

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Nice catch, young Jedi! The ref was undefined; cite did not exist, so had nothing to do with either suggestion. The first-time editor (good faith but COI) copied syntax of other cast members. - Neonorange (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Verb tense problems in Selma (film)

An editor has pointed out that this article has problems with verb tense and needs to be cleaned up. Any volunteers? I fixed the first sentence, there are likely to be more problems since several editors worked quickly to get the article ready for DYK. - Neonorange (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to me, I have said no such thing. The article is outdated. It requires an update. You are over-reacting to this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I am referring to you, and I am sorry if I have mischaracterized your meaning. It is, however, my interpretation of what you meant. And no, I am not over-reacting; I am trying to understand your concerns, and am making an attempt to come up with proper changes to the article. - Neonorange (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Accolades section

To me, it seems that Accolades imply an honor awarded, not a nomination for which there is no certainty of actual award. The 'pending' column seems to assert, at first glance, that the award will be awarded to those listed in the table. The nominations are worthy of mention, but not in the way the section implies.

I have reverted the initial insertion of the section, but the editor who originally inserted the section has reverted my removal. I think this issue could reach a consensus by changing the tabular approach to a prose section with a more neutral title, say, AFI Nominations, until the actual award program. —Neonorange (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ten days later. I've changed the section heading to 'Awards' and added a table; the first table is now headed 'Nominations' and the second is now headed 'Wins'. On Monday (tomorrow) the winners out of the Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association Awards will be announced, any wins for Selma can be entered into the second table. — Neonorange (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies I should've checked the Talk page here first but really the heading "Accolades" seems super un-objective, so I changed it to say Awards, which is the only way I've ever seen it on pages like this. So I'm sure someone probably feels very strongly about this and will revert but wanted to say sorry I didn't see this until now. Erika BrillLyle (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Awards: nominations and wins

I've reinserted the awards table; until the awards season has ended, it's better to keep all the Selma information together. At that time, the tables can be simplified into double column lists within this article. Better to work on updates here—time is better spent on adding content—for example, Selma has won one award that has not yet been added. — Neonorange (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox release dates

The limited release on December 25th occurs in only two cities. It is a disservice to our readers to fail to include the wide release date of January 9th. The January 9th wide release date (which likely increases accessibility by more than an order of magnitude) was removed by an editor; I reverted the edit and asked for discussion on the talk page. That editor, instead of discussion, re-reverted and merely left an edit summary. In my opinion, the 'infobox' is for quick facts about the subject, and should include the wide release date. — Neonorange (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

After all, Template:Film Infobox, section 6, states "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." For Selma, limited may indicate 200 screens and wide may mean 2000 screens. — Neonorange (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to include it, and also to mention that the release of the 25th is just in New York and Los Angeles (Hollywood shorthand for 'Oscar contending'). Readers looking up the film on Wikipedia may think it's opening up near them on the 25th, so unless they live in NY or LA they're be wandering the streets, popcorn hidden in their coat pocket, searching, searching... Randy Kryn 9:14 20 December, 2014 (UTC)

We do not list the "wide" release date in the infobox. We only list the initial release date in each country of production. We still include the expansion date in the prose which has more space for explanation. BOVINEBOY2008 14:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If the purpose of the Infobox is placing key and useful data in a concise way at the top of the article, then limited and wide release dates seem reasonable, and can be inferred as useful from the explanation of 'release' in the template guide. — Neonorange (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

'Controversies' section

Is the current 'Controversies' section WP:UNDUE? — Neonorange (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems fair. I haven't seen the film yet, and won't until January, but films about history, and advertised as being about history, should at least get history right. See the film Argo for a recent example of 'HowTo:Get history very wrong and still be successful' (the Argo page has a long section on what it had wrong). In this case the defense of Lyndon Johnson comes across as fair, especially if Selma got it wrong. James Bevel, for example, praised Lyndon Johnson and what he did for civil rights in the 1960s (and just as quickly criticized him for his Vietnam War). Bevel, in his later years, actually honored Johnson on the anniversary of his "We Shall Overcome" voting rights speech to Congress by holding yearly events, dinners, and speeches in praise of President Johnson's work. In short, history and movies have sometimes gotten along well, but sometimes films don't get it right (often on purpose for the sake of drama and emotional impact). In this case, not having seen the film, it still feels right to chronicle what others are saying about what seems an error in its telling. Randy Kryn 5:06 30 December, 2014 (UTC)

I plan to see the film in the next day or two. I'm so used to Atlanta being passed over for 'limited' releases—I don't read the Atlanta newspaper nor do I watch local news, so I only learned about the release here yesterday. — Neonorange (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Today's New York Times has a large front-page article on the LBJ and Selma film controversy. Interestingly, they go back and forth on who should get credit for the creation and success of the Selma Movement and the Selma March, without once mentioning James Bevel. I haven't seen the film yet, and ask those who have, does Bevel get proper credit for his Selma Movement via his and Diane Nash's Alabama Plan for Voting Rights, and is it mentioned he was SCLC's Director of the Selma Movement, and do they portray his initiation and creation of the Selma to Montgomery March in the film? How does it portray him initiating it? If, in the movie, Jim Bevel is shown walking around and around the Torch Motel at night right after finding out that Jimmie Lee Jackson was going to die, and just after angrily shoving or pushing his wife, Diane Nash, onto a bed - for one reason because she had divorce papers served on him while he was chained to a jail hospital bed with pneumoia and after a police beating - knowing that he and his anger were out of control and that the anger of the community was out of control, knew for a fact that he had to work that out in himself and then had to find a way to stop the violence that he knew was going to erupt soon after Jackson died (Bevel had been in Marion, and had seen people who'd taken out and cleaned their guns and rifles), then they got it right. If the film shows Jim Bevel walking around and around the Torch Motel until he finally came up with the idea of inviting the people to march from Selma to Montgomery to ask Alabama Governor George Wallace if he had ordered the State Troopers to turn off the lights at the nighttime demonstration in Marion, the demonstration where Jackson was shot protecting his mother and grandfather from a beating, then it's accurate. If Bevel is then shown going into the office of the Torch Motel to tell the idea to Annie Lee Cooper, its night clerk, and then walking into the room of activist and writer Chuck Fager to tell him and his wife about it, and, soon, shows Bevel going to the Jackson home with Bernard Lafayette (who had agreed to march with him) to get the approval of Cager Lee Jackson and Jimmie Lee Jackson's mom to hold the march, and finally shows Bevel announcing it at the Zion United Methodist Church in Marion, which made the people seeking revenge put away their guns, they've got themselves a historically accurate movie. If that's how it's portrayed, it is spot on, and the writers and director of the film used some good research and accurate reporting by a couple of people to tell it as it occurred. If it isn't, I call dibs on a film which includes that point of view, which accurately portrays the HowTo:Throw Together a 54-Mile March in 1965 Alabama. The New York Times will hopefully, some day, figure out who really should get credit for the Selma Movement and for the Selma to Montgomery March. But in any case, today's front page New York Times article seems to have added to the validity of including the section about controversies. Randy Kryn 19:36 1 January, 2015 (UTC) (p.s. the date reminds me of a letter pertaining to this subject published in the Chicago Sun-Times of 1 January, 1988, which may have gotten it right for the first time in any major media outlet)

The newest additions to the controversy section relate how LBJ already had much of the voting rights legislation drawn up and written at the time of the actions in Selma in 1965, which is likely true. What Selma did, particularly the violence which occurred on the first day of the Selma to Montgomery march, was provide the context which Johnson could use to present the Voting Rights Act to Congress and the nation and then literally demand its passage. Much the same thing happened with the Fair Housing Act of 1968, much of which was written long before that and seems to have been inspired by the 1966 Chicago Open Housing Movement - but sadly, it was not provided a "passing level" context until Dr. King was assassinated. Regarding civil rights, President Johnson was in the right office, with the right intentions, at the right time. The 1960s, what a decade! If Shakespeare were alive now he'd write epic plays about it, or would at least put up some good youtube vids. Randy Kryn 10:58 2 January, 2015 (UTC)

I think that the controversies section is important -- I added the timeline that Alan Sepinwall very helpfully created to summarize the significant coverage of the issues in the hope it would help others such as myself who are trying to catch up on both the film's release (haven't seen it yet) and also understand the issue. The Charlie Rose appearance will probably be pretty interesting, as folks on the show can talk longer than the usual soundbite. Thanks! Erika BrillLyle (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the revert by Neonorange of my edits. The information I posted was not a promo squib or whatever you describe it as. Sepinwall is a well-known, respected film and TV critic with a background in newspaper journalism. The citation is solid. I am not liking how much the page has had itself reverted by this one user. It does not seem to be in keeping with Wikipedia editing standards. BrillLyle (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps my edit summaries for the reverts to edits made by BrillLyle were not clear.

• reception section—this section is about evaluation of the film as a work of art; evaluation for historical accuracy is something else, say, a section headed by 'Controversy over historical accuracy'; in addition, the structure (a section with a single subsection) is awkward
• 'accolades' is an objective, descriptive, term meaning honors—'awards' is not a good substitute for 'accolades' in the context of nominations and awards, as nominations are not awards
• the sentence 'Alan Sepinwall from HitFix created a timeline of the controversy, and said that DuVernay had already taped an episode of Charlie Rose where the controversy would be discussed.' seems to be more of a cite than information added to an article; it contains no information, but rather points to where information can, in the future, be found—best wait until the interview is available, then use it to add material to the controversy section
• 'Entity'; the full name of each award is awarding group + category—placing 'Award' as a header spanning the 'Awarding Group' column and the 'Category' column is more clear, but not as concise as just a single header for each column: 'Awarding Group' and 'Category'

I reverted your edits, which you then re-reverted. We disagree. I think it would be easier to discuss what is best for the article if you were to revert your re-reverts. — Neonorange (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's WP:UNDUE. I read a letter by John Lewis in Monday's The Los Angeles Times called "The truth about 'Selma'". Why didn't your article quote him? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! Thank you for posting this ({http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lewis-selma-movie-20150119-story.html}). John Lewis is creditable; by blood, thought, and deed. The two major fonts of 'historical accuracy' criticism in this 'controversy' are Johnson loyalists, by prior or previous jobs. — Neonorange (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A rough count tells me this section is way too long: it is more than 25% of the article. I would suggest that it ought to go back to its size in mid-January when it was two paragraphs. Perhaps it was a victim of too much news leading up to and over the holiday. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've cut more than 7,000 characters and think the article looks better. I hope others agree. By the way, the people who made The Imitation Game suffered almost as bad. If the computer Turing built had an extra screw somewhere, it would be listed under "Accuracy" in the Wikipedia article. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think your rework of the 'controversies' section is a major improvement. The back and forth in the section had developed into battle in the article; no service to our audience. — Neonorange (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed--nicely done. Barte (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue of the controversy was not about what was omitted, but what some historians claim was a deliberate distortion of President Johnson's attitude and role. Few would quibble with the right of DuVernay to not want to make another "white-savior" film and instead put an emphasis on the perspective of her primary subject matter, or her right to leave out mention of many prominent individuals across the social and racial spectrum who participated in the Selma marches or otherwise supported King. What Updegrove, Califano and other historians take issue with is how Johnson, who spearheaded the drive to pass the Civil Rights legislation and who proactively engaged and supported King, is portrayed as either a reluctant or obstructionist actor or self-interested opportunist. So your inclusion of Lewis' reference to the Lincoln film doesn't fit here.--Civlaction (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Civlaction, I removed a long sentence that you added, "At issue was not DuVernay's right to omit historical actors and facts or write the story with King and the people of Selma as the main actors and from their perspective, but rather how President Johnson, who spearheaded the drive to pass the Civil Rights legislation and who proactively engaged and supported King, and who had even suggested that King find a "worst condition" and make the blatant unfairness highly visible in order to sway public opinion and help "shove through" civil rights changes and legislation, was instead portrayed by DuVernay as a reluctant or obstructionist actor who had the FBI harass King and keep him under surveillance." I wonder, is there a way to say that concisely and integrate it into the very first sentence of the section? Also we need a URL for the source Fact-Checking the Film: 'Selma'. I will look for it. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that was the right URL. Sorry about that. Here are the first and second sentences. They seem to be wasted words and I bet you can write the lead to this section by editing down the long sentence. "The question of the historical accuracy of the film's story has been the subject of controversy, particularly with regard to roles played by historical figures either included or omitted in the movie. According to Entertainment Weekly '​s Inside Movies "Fact-Checking the Film: 'Selma'", there are a number of historical and factual inaccuracies in the film, although most controversy in the media centers on DuVernay's depiction of the role played by President Lyndon Johnson and his relationship with King." -SusanLesch (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with and appreciate your changes and recommendations. Per your suggestion, I have attempted to edit down the first two sentences, and have attempted to integrate the essence of the verbose deleted section into the initial paragraph. Is this what you had it mind, or would you recommend other changes. Thank you again for your input.--Civlaction (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What you have done looks really good! Nice editing. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this the endtitles?

I don't check movie articles often, so it can be a habit. But I am surprised that the lede is actually a thank-you list that would overextend an Oscars time limit. It looks like the small print that makes half the film poster, fulfilling all legal obligations. It mentions major historical dates too -- that is, release dates, not the original march date. The march itself is presented in one link.

Useless for what I expected and wanted to find. -DePiep (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems fine to me, honestly, except maybe it doesn’t need to list all the production companies. But I don’t know if that’s common for film articles. As for dates, this article is about a movie, not about the historical events it’s based on. The release date is more relevant here. Could you clarify what it was you expected to find? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

See: that date may be important. So why are these other dates there? -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Other dates? You mean the premieres and releases? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy nitwitting, producer. Hope you get payed enough to live on, yourself. -DePiep (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say. Please rephrase. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the IP user. The production companies don't need to be listed in the lead. I'm not sure what information is missing. Are you looking for information on the historical events? That's mentioned in passing, as it probably should be. The lead should be more about the film (premiere date, release date) than the historical events. It would be good to prominently link to an article about the historical events. That's done in the second sentence, so it seems fine to me. I don't know. Is there a specific problem that needs to be addressed? I'm surely open to fixing the lead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

On the first paragraph, is it really necessary to mention the nationalities of the actors? Unless the fact that British actors were used was a cause of some controversy or other, it's not exactly important, or even relevant, information. Giving some historical background is important though so that people actually know what the film is about. I think you can axe the second paragraph of the lead as it gives undue weight to the production company information. The release dates also don't need that much coverage except for maybe giving the festival premiere and then stating that it had a limited and then full release later on sans dates. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 20 Adar 5775 04:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done I’ve removed the paragraph about the production/distribution companies, and removed the mentions of nationality. I left the dates intact because they seem relevant. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

SCLC and SNCC

In the lead, I expanded the abbreviations SCLC and SNCC to Southern Christian Leadership Conference and Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee respectively, since I didn’t believe those abbreviations were widely known. @Neonorange reverted on the basis that the full names aren’t widely known, either. In that case, should we just remove those unexplained terms entirely? I’m not sure what value they add to the text. Or should we add some kind of explanation as to what those things are? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear enough; I stated that the name Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee was not better known than the acronym SNCC, not that it was not well known—and vice versa). Similar for the the name Southern Christianship Leadership Conference and the acronym SCLC.

The section is the lede of a film article, a summary of the text to come, both usages are Wikilinked, so the shorter version is just just as informative, and has the advantage of being more concise. — Neonorange (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Then let’s at least add something like “the group” in there, can we? Because if they’re important enough to mention in the lead, surely we should make sure readers understand why we’re including those collections of letters. Yes, they’re wikilinked, but that doesn’t help if you’re reading a printout.
Alternatively, if they’re not important enough to explain in the lead, then how can we say they’re important enough to include there? Just list the names of the people. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why you would ask a question, then just go ahead and make the edit before any replies. Both organizations were key organizations in the African-American Civil Rights Movement; as were their members. I don't find your arguments persuasive; perhaps others will. The way this process works: make a case on the talk page and see what happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neonorange (talk • contribs) 06:59, 5 April 2015‎

Because it seemed like it would improve the article. Same reason as should be behind any edit. Anyway, why should this article assume that the reader is familiar with the Civil Rights Movement? The abbreviations are just there with no mention of their importance. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

According to the Manual of Style, abbreviations, including acronyms, should be written out in full the first time that they are used. This is the third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your third opinion, and especially for pointing out the MoS guidance. — Neonorange (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

"Hagan & Tilden"...Deliberate or Coincidence?

As a North Carolina resident when I saw Selma in the theaters back in January I couldn't help but notice that there was a shot of a sign that reads "Hagan & Tilden" right before the first encounter on the Edmund G. Pettus bridge.

Seeing "Hagan & Tilden" made me wonder if this was deliberate reference to the very close Senate race between Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis.

The timing is consistent with the Republican primary occurring on May 6, 2014, and filming beginning on May 20, 2014.

Selma_(film)#Filming

United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014

I just opened the DVD package, and found where the shot occurs:

The clock says 01:12:28, and it's the scene of the first encounter on the Edmund G. Pettus bridge, which is listed as scene 9.

174.109.240.52 (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Writing credit

As User:Neonorange says, "Webb, by contractural agreement, received sole writer credit; the infobox reflects this; as do the Selma credits". While that is indeed true, I think it's a poor argument against including her name.

Regarding the contract, I (and probably most people here) were not party to the contract so we have no obligation to credit Paul Webb as the sole writer.

And I think the credits are irrelevant. Wikipedia's purpose is not to copy/paste information from IMDB, it's to report facts which are backed up by reliable sources. Multiple reliable sources say that Paul Webb and Ava DuVernay both wrote the screenplay, so "Written by Paul Webb" is factually inaccurate.

Would it be less objectionable if we put "(uncredited)" by DuVernay's name in the infobox? --holizz (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

To expand on my necessarily short edit summary:

You may find this Wikipedia article, this Wikipedia article, and the cites (34, 35, and 36 at the moment) for the first two sentences in the second paragraph of the development subsection helpful in understanding why Paul Webb received sole writing credit for Selma in the infobox (all of the items the infobox credits come from the film credits as displayed on the film's poster and title credits and end credits). That entire paragraph is devoted to DuVernay's writing contribution, while the infobox contains the official writing credit from the authoritative WP:RS for that information. — Neonorange (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Citation of film's lack of portrayal of Jewish clergy

A variety of well-documented sources have discussed the contention of some commentators that the film was remiss in not portraying Jewish clergy (in an identifiable way) among the white supporters and marchers at Selma. Highlighting the view of one professor at Occidental College (from among a wide number of well-known commentators on the subject) and singling out one individual who marched near King during one of the three marches does not add to the point being made in the Wikipedia article that there are people who felt that the film did not adequately reference or portray a number of historical actors who they saw as having significant roles in the Civil Rights movement. Making the point that some people took issue with the omission of Jewish clergy activists is fine (even if the film-makers' went on record in multiple forums to explain that the film was not intended as a thorough and historically accurate documentary, bu rather a subjective story told according to a specific perspective), but if this is the objective than simply state the point and cite a source in the footnoted reference. Newseum (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I've moved your post to the bottom of the page as that is the order used (top earliest, bottom latest) for talk pages in Wikipedia. I removed your initial edit and asked for you to discuss the edit on the article talk page. I am sorry I did not make my request clear. Please open a discussion here before restoring your edit, and wait for discussion here for a consensus, or at least for further comment. I see now that you are a new editor, so it is my fault that I was not clearer in my request. Also, the edit comment you used 'improving flow' was not accurate; you added new material. It is very good that you used an edit summary, but to be useful, edit summaries must be accurate.

The controversy over Johnson's portrayed relationship with King is the major controversy as to historical accuracy. It naturally fits as the lead example. This is not to say that the material you wish to add is not appropriate, but you should get other input on how to add it to the article. It might even be considered WP:Undue unless other controversial inaccuracies are also discussed in the article. — Neonorange (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification and advice. I didn't realize that I had added new material; rather I thought I was summarizing the point being made and simply removed specific references to individuals (commentator and subject) that seemed subjectively highlighted. I will research further and wait for other comments in the discussion. Thanks again.Newseum (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. I think you will find the use of a commentator's name quite usual in Wikipedia articles as part of upholding Wikipedia's neutral point of view (tying Updegrove and Califano to the Johnson portrayal criticism, for example). I think the section is problematical, perhaps because of the piecemeal construction resulting from participation by multiple contributors to each article. You might think in terms of rewriting the entire section. I also think that keeping the call out of a specific individual is justified since that is the concrete basis of the omission criticism. — Neonorange (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm a newbie at this,I'm not sure I'm comfortable with trying to rewrite the entire section, although I agree that the section seems somewhat disjointed and piecemeal. Since the paragraph on Jewish clergy seems rather clumsily inserted and awkwardly written, what would you think of replacing it with the following (plus reference citations)?:

"In addition to the controversy surrounding the film's depiction of President Johnson and other historical figures, some commentators have taken issue with the film for not mentioning the contribution of individual American Jews in the Civil Rights movement or portraying specific Jewish clergy who were among the non-black supporters marching with King at Selma."

Hopefully this summarizes the key point that previous contributors were trying to make while avoiding undue weight given to one social commentator and singling out one individual from among the more than dozen rabbis and American Jews that marched at Selma. Without minimizing Rabbi Heschel's support for King, singling out Heschel because he marched in one of three Selma marches and was in the front row of marchers with King when a photo was taken that later became highly publicized seems to do disservice to the other rabbis and civil rights supporters who marched with King and contributed to the cause yet went unrecognized. As for the commentator reference, I appreciate your point that the use of commentator names is usual, though I'm not sure I'd equate the inclusion of Updegrove and Califano with that of the commentator in question. While Updegrove is a well-known presidential historian and director of the LBJ Library and Califano was LBJ's cabinet secretary and point person for civil rights (and thus both apparently eminently qualified to write about LBJ), the sole reference to a Huffington Post blog opinion by a professor and social commentator at Occidental College seems oddly subjective and curious for its inclusion, particularly when there are a number of well-known academics and writers who have also weighed in on the subject. Then again, perhaps I'm still not clear on what references should or should not be included. I'd appreciate your further input on this.

- Newseum (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems an improvement to me. The best approach is to make the edit. This may draw more comments, or it may not. As to the cite, one, the best, should be enough (I will search but that may take me a day or two. Wikipedia is based on the conclusions and statements in sources considered reliable: a national newspaper, well regarded academic journals, and other sources that involve editorial supervision—not, for example, an internet forum, a local newspaper or television station, nor blogs). Wikipedia has no editorial supervision or structure any conclusions or synthesis must come from outside, from reliable sources which must be cited so that a reader and other editors can check content. Wikipedia's stand on original research and synthesis should be helpful. I'd guess one reason for using the statement tied to Dreier is the difficulty of finding a citation for a concisely expressed conclusion based mainly on the absence of an historical figure or organization from a film.

Finally, I'm a newbie also—one can get lost in trying to understand the workings of Wikipedia; better, I think, to just do it, while trying to remain patient and civil (advice I should take myself). — Neonorange (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"British-American"

Why is this described as a "British-American" film? What is the standard for including "British"? Is there a British actor in it or something? I can't think of a more American film than this. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:6DB5:E9A2:B4E8:F1D0 (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

References are provided next to "United Kingdom" in the infobox and next to "British–American" in the lead. The references point to the British Film Institute. In it, the BFI states that the film was made in association with Ingenious Media, which is a British company. There might be additional reasons, but that is one of them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The BFI website just lists it as British but doesn't say why, at least that I see. This movie has numerous production companies, as do basically all major movies. That seems like a really weak standard to call something 'British-American'. That sounds to me like British actors, set in Britain etc. This is obviously a much larger issue than this one article, some noticeboard or project page would probably be better but would people here support or oppose changing it to just American? 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:6DB5:E9A2:B4E8:F1D0 (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Change it based on what? Your personal gut feeling that it is not a British co-production? I'd have to object to that. The BFI is considered a reliable source and there is presumably a reason why they're giving the UK props, even if it's not explicitly stated in the reference. You're proposing that we disregard a reliable source why? Because it doesn't match your personal worldview? Doesn't sound reasonable. You're free to invite members of WikiProject film to the discussion if you wish. Just please be sure your invitation is neutrally worded. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I brought it up at Project Film. That seems like the right place as this applies to countless articles. I agree gut feeling is not a valid reason to make the change, that would be original research which isn't allowed. I don't have an answer for the correct way to determine what country a film is from, hopefully somebody there will be able to answer that. But I don't think looking at BFI's site and simply going by the fact that they list 'United Kingdom' with no justification, is sufficient. That is the British Film Institute, they probably want to establish a connection between Britain and notable films. Wikipedia might want to have a more rigorous standard than theirs. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:6DB5:E9A2:B4E8:F1D0 (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about which producing company or other did what or didn't do what, it'll be interesting to see more sources on this, but one thing that's British is the star of the movie, David Oyelowo, who plays Dr. King. The British actress Carmen Ejogo plays Coretta Scott King, Dr. King's wife, and Lyndon Johnson and George Wallace are portrayed by Brits Tom Wilkinson and Tim Roth. The Ingenious Media Wikipedia page doesn't mention film production, unless I missed it or it's mixed in with other company names. Randy Kryn 23:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ingenious Media wouldn't have to do any physical production for it to be considered a British co-pro. They could have financed it, and farmed out the labor, but still rightly claim co-ownership of it. We don't know what financial deals were made. The film's copyright in the US is held by Pathe Productions Limited Address: 6 Ramillies Street, 4th Floor, London, W1F 7TY, United Kingdom. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is responding at Project Film. Slumdog Millionaire is considered a British film because the director is British. It seems there is a strong bias for calling things British. If a Chinese company had put money into this film, people wouldn't be arguing as hard as you are to call it a Chinese film. But I have no interest in waging war on the pages of hundreds of different movies so somebody us will have to take up this battle later. I hope they do. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:6DB5:E9A2:B4E8:F1D0 (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Obviously the British Film Institute has it down as a co-production between the two countries and the European Audiovisual Observatory concurs with this view, so there is a compelling argument for Wikiepedia to treat it the same way. However, it is not a unanimous view since the American Film Institute has it down as just an American film. Usually if all three sources agree I would say just go with that, but that clearly isn't the case. Has anybody got a copy of the film? Most films these days produced under a national co-production treaty will state on the copyright card at the end of the end credits if it is an international co-production. If it wasn't a formal co-production then I would recommend dropping the disputed country and installing the AFI source; if it was then just leave it as it is. Betty Logan (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe it had something to do with the fact that Pathe was one of the studios involved with the production. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)