Talk:The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

"Coup", then

OK, we might as well get this out of the way now, hopefully get some consensus. I noticed this edit to the lead, which I've reverted, following BRD. However, should it be reinstated I won't be doing so again until consensus has been reached here. For reference, here is the pre-change original wording:

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised ... is a 2003 documentary focusing on events in Venezuela leading up to and during President Hugo Chávez's brief removal from power in 2002.

And here's the amended version:

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised ... is a 2003 documentary focusing on events in Venezuela leading up to and during the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt against President Hugo Chávez.

Anyway, I just wanted to put across an argument for phrasing the lead the it appears in the first of those. As previously explained (this is more for Jrtayloriv's benefit, as I don't know if he/she has the page watchlisted), I've come to the subject late—I tend to edit less-controversial film articles—but after spending a lot of time reading sources from both sides, my initial conclusion was that the best way to defuse the antagonism here was to sideline the controversy, at least initially. With that in mind, as we've seen, I set about building up the conventional film article aspects first; background, production, funding, distribution, etc. Everything else has been ringfenced into one or two sections. Now, the lead especially has been the focus of a lot of debate; quite naturally, as it's the first thing people will see. So, after discussion above with editors coming from both viewpoints, I again stripped out the disputed wording and rhetoric. I was pleased to see that my interim compromise was accepted. Now, with regard to whether we should use the word "coup" ... here's my take: although the events of April 2002 are called a coup by the title of the Wikipedia article, there are enough sources out there that dispute that it was one. So I think it's best that it is referred to, not in a "misleading, euphemistic" way, as Jrtayloriv believed it to be, but in a more descriptive way. To my mind, it is more accurate and gives the reader more information to say Chávez was briefly removed from power before being reinstated. More so than sending the reader to the "coup" article to get that context. Let the other articles deal with defining it as a coup or otherwise; in this one, which specifically deals with (or will do, once complete) the back-and-forth over the depiction of the disputed events, it'd be more neutral not to. Steve T • C 01:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"[A]lthough the events of April 2002 are called a coup by the title of the Wikipedia article, there are enough sources out there that dispute that it was one" Good grief. How can anyone seriously believe the incident was anything other than a failed coup? (i.e. a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force). Wikispan (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I wasn't commenting on my opinion of the events, just on the seemingly-disputed use of the word. What really happened in April 2002 is subject to so much debate; whether you believe one side or the other, that much is beyond doubt. With that in mind, I thought it best not to use the term (which is seriously disputed by some people, even if you happen to disagree with them) when we can simply replace it with something more descriptive, less emotive and less liable to create drama, leaving the context for the article body and the main "coup" article. Anyway, I'm off to sleep; I advise you mull it over and see if something can be thrashed out one way or the other. All the best, Steve T • C 02:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The overwhelming vast majority of reliable, scholarly sources describe the events of 11 April 2002 as a failed coup. Yes there are sources who dispute the exact circumstances of how Hugo Chavez came to be whisked away, just as there are serious sources and numerous authors who say George Bush was not fairly elected to power in 2001 and was, in reality, a dictator—always good for a round of applause—but we do not give these sources any more weight than they actually deserve. Wikispan (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you provide some evidence that the "vast majority of reliable, scholary sources describe the events ... as a failed coup"? That's not my recollection at all, although the laypress, who finds it difficult to characterize such complex events, has come to refer to it as a "coup". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, since I am shortly to have five days off on holiday (15th-19th), with no plans, I propose we create a sub page for the purpose of listing all reliable and scholarly sources that describe the event in this way, comparing the results with the sources that do not. Yours is such a fringe view I no longer find funny. Wikispan (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
"more descriptive, less emotive and less liable to create drama" - words to live by, or at least to write an encyclopedia. Tom Harrison Talk 13:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Why should we tiptoe around facts in order to placate any passing reader who happens to dislike Hugo Chavez? Perhaps we should rename 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt to 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt (please don't take offence). :) Wikispan (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Please try to stay on topic; this is an important discussion, at the very core of what this film alleges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No need to tiptoe. Just present it in context at 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, and summarize it here. "President Hugo Chávez's brief removal from power in 2002," with the link, is good summary style. It gives the reader the background she needs to read this article, and directs her to the detailed account. Tom Harrison Talk 14:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Except the ... ummmm ... "detailed account" isn't, yet. I do dislike the Easter egg link, and think we should find a way to incorporate an explicit link, while retaining the neutral gist of Steve's wording. We cannot prejudice readers early on with the simple-minded notion that it was a "classic coup", when that debate is at the very heart of what this film alleges, leaving out key facts like Chavez's resignation and him ordering the military to fire on fellow countrymen who were peacefully protesting. Then, the "coup" account needs to eventually be neutralized as well; it seems that most of the editors supporting the "coup" notion haven't been able to separate reliable accounts of the events of April 11 from the Pedro Carmona debacle, which led to Chavez being reinstated after he resigned: two separate things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks reasonably thorough; anyway, that's where the detailed account goes, if/when there is one. Fair point about the Easter egg. Maybe we can get wording that's both "more descriptive, less emotive and less liable to create drama" and also "accurate and concise." Tom Harrison Talk 15:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
My prose stinks :) But Steve is implaccably neutral; I trust he'll come up with something neutral that avoids the egg. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the original (coup) is a more neutral depiction of what the sources say. It's also more factually accurate. Why are we even arguing whether a bunch of military generals attempting to overthrow a democratically elected leader by military force is a "coup" or not? Calling this a "brief removal from power" is clearly giving undue weight to a very fringe viewpoint. Most reliable sources call it a coup attempt. Even the U.S., which financially supported the coup attempt, calls it one. For the same reason that the article linked to is not called Hugo Chavez's brief removal from power in 2002, I think we can just link using the title of the article itself. Also, regarding Steve's comment that "removal from power" gives more information: this is manifestly untrue. Coup implies removal from power, but it also adds further information that it was a forceful and illegal removal from power. Coup provides more information, not removal from power. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't done much scholarly reading on the topic, or weren't there. Perhaps you got all your information about the events of 11 April from this film? At any rate, please stop edit warring; the rest of us are discussing civilly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually I've never seen this film. I was not in Venezuela during the coup, so you are correct there. And I'm not edit warring, just editing. And you're not discussing it "civilly" -- you're discussing it passive aggressively. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
"Even the U.S., which financially supported the coup attempt, calls it one." There is no evidence the United States supported the overthrow directly, financially or otherwise. A Freedom of Information Act request revealed interesting US Department of State memoranda, foretelling the coup attempt. Wikispan (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's a quote from the U.S. Dept of State Inspector General: "it is clear that NED [the National Endowment for Democracy], Department of Defense (DOD), and other U.S. assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chavez government."
See footnote here for further information. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
How does this matter for this article? If it doesn't, copy the point to the coup article talk page, and move on. Rd232 talk 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, once there, please refrain from using primary sources, and reference multiple reliable secondary sources that tell the whole story, not just the CEPR version. But that content isn't relevant to this article, and is quite partial and unbalanced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't apply to this article. I shouldn't have corrected it here. Good point. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Break

Well this discussion seems to have gone on long enough. The events are generally described as a coup by reliable sources, and as long as the linked article is titled as it is, it should simply be called that. The energy spent arguing about this link would be far better spent explaining exactly why some people do argue that it was not in fact a coup - which hinges, IMO, on the claim that Chavez resigned. There are two versions of the facts about this: I) Chavez didn't resign, he offered to resign under duress and subject to certain conditions, notably that he would resign in front of the National Assembly - but Rincon announced the resignation anyway; II) Chavez resigned, and Rincon announced it, basta. There are also differing views of whether, if II were true, this would negate it being a coup, since a head of state verbally resigning under duress and military detention is generally not considered legally valid. The point is sometimes raised that in some people's view Chavez was responsible for the 11 April deaths and had ordered Plan Avila, which allegedly would lead to a repeat of the Caracazo, thus justifying his removal from office by the military. Such a removal might (at least if the facts were true) possibly be legal under certain conditions. All of these details might, properly sourced, be discussed in the coup article, and where they are raised by critics of the film, here. But they don't negate the prevailing view that it was a coup, so let's waste no more time arguing about a single wikilink. Rd232 talk 09:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm a proponent of choosing one's battles wisely and ... I think this one isn't worth having right now. This isn't the place to thrash out whether it was a coup or not; the idea is so widely disseminated that even if one were to believe it wasn't one, using the direct link for now instead of the piped "brief removal of power" isn't going to do any harm at this article. That's not to say a wider look at Venezuelan articles isn't warranted at some point, but that's a discussion for another day and I won't be reverting your change. As before, it's all about the context in which it's presented. My version was only ever supposed to be an interim solution until a fully-formed lead could be written to provide that context, hopefully to the satisfaction of all viewpoints. After I've got my head around how best to present the critical reaction and any accuracy-type section, we should be able to start expanding the lead again. I'm sure there'll be speedbumps along the way, but based the strides we've made so far, I'm confident any disagreements can be overcome. Steve T • C 10:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree this isn't the place - detailed discussion should be at the coup article. The reason I went into the detail above was because this is part of the X-Ray et al criticism - that Revolution accepts it as a coup when, in the view of some, it wasn't. Explaining why some people think that may come into this article to some extent. For instance at the moment the X-Ray section mentions the resignation announcement; but this is cryptic without an explanation of the point being made, along the lines I explained. Rd232 talk 11:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
We can live with it for now, as the article is still being developed, but before we get into the heart of the controversy (which will lead to a rewrite of the lead, once finished), I'm hoping that Wikispan and Jrtayloriv will learn to confine their arguments here to reasonable views, policy, guideline, and civil discussion, rather than parroting their limited views of what the sources say, based apparently on selective reading and limited understanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope everyone can contribute to a more collaborative atmosphere, focussed more on what good sources say. In general, sticking to specific points of information omitted or misread is more helpful than saying what you generally think about other editors or their views. (I'm replying to Sandy's remark but it applies generally.) Rd232 talk 12:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Point taken. Your post above was a more neutral summary of the dilemma, and I hope Wikispan and Jrtayloriv will learn from it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Rd232 -- Agreed. Thanks for being a voice of calm. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Stable? Work on lead?

This article looks stable following Steve's last addition several days ago; is it time to begin work on the lead? Also, we need an uninvolved editor to update the assessment to B-class. Steve, are you planning to take this to Good article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

GA hadn't occurred to me; I was just happy that it seemed stable for the first time in ages. :-) I was planning on leaving it a little longer to make sure everyone was ... well, perhaps not happy with the article, but at least grudgingly accepting of its neutrality (including you!) before expanding the lead. As it'll be tricky to summarise perfectly first time, do you think it would be a good idea for me to work something up first and post it here on talk before implementing? As for GA, presuming stability and a decent lead, I think it's got a shot. Sure, let's go for it. :-) Steve T • C 18:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
My thinking exactly ... you should post it here first for discussion, so when you go GAN (hint, hint), there won't be stability issues. And then ... FAC :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Ack! FAC? That was even further from my thinking. One thing at a time. :-) Anyway, I told you the lead would be difficult to get right first time, and I was right; this is my fourth attempt:

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (also known as Chavez: Inside the Coup and La revolución no será transmitida) is a 2003 documentary focusing on events in Venezuela leading up to and during the April 2002 coup d'état attempt, which saw President Hugo Chávez removed from office for several days. With particular focus on the role of the private media in Venezuelan politics, the film covers several key incidents, including the protest march and subsequent violence that provided the final impetus for Chávez's ousting, the opposition's formation of an interim government and the administration's eventual collapse, which paved the way for Chávez's return. The Revolution Will Not Be Televised was directed by Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain. Intending to make a fly on the wall biography of Chávez, the pair spent seven months filming in Venezuala, following the president and his staff and conducting interviews with residents. In April 2002, they were in Caracas; shifting focus, they filmed the violence on the streets and used contacts to capture footage at the presidential palace as events unfolded.

The film was positively received by mainstream film critics and won several awards. Reviewers cited the filmmakers' unprecedented proximity to key events and praised the film's "riveting narrative"; criticism focused on the lack of context and its pro-Chávez bias. First shown on television in Europe and Venezuela in 2003, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised later appeared at several film festivals and secured a limited theatrical release on the North American art house circuit. Venezuelan officials and independent activists have disseminated the film both officially and unofficially, encouraging viewings to build support for the government; the film is regularly shown on Venezuelan television during "contentious political conjunctures". The Revolution Will Not Be Televised presents Chávez in a favorable light throughout the crisis, leading to disputes over the film's neutrality and accuracy; particular attention is paid to its framing of the violence of 11–13 April, the filmmakers' editing of the timeline and the alleged omission of incidents and personnel. The film is alternately cited as an accurate portrayal or a misrepresentation of the events of April 2002.

As I say, difficult to get the balance right. On the one hand, obviously I want to avoid accusations of bias in either direction, but on the other we have to be careful of argumentum ad temperantiam. However, I think the above successfully negotiates that minefield. So ... let's see what everyone thinks! Steve T • C 10:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy. I think you've done a great job. Wikispan (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Some suggested tweaks, Steve (because I'm thinking ahead to FAC):
  • For an article this size, the lead is short; is there anything you can expand?
  • With particular focus on the role of the private media in Venezuelan politics, the film covers several key incidents,
  • Can you think of a different word than "covers"? The problem is, it doesn't cover key incidents-- it leaves many out, and distorts others.
  • including the protest march and subsequent violence that provided the final impetus for Chávez's ousting, the opposition's formation of an interim government and the administration's eventual collapse, which paved the way for Chávez's return.
  • For those of us who understand the complex narrative-- and even based on the well-constructed sentence-- it's clear that "the administrations's eventual collapse" refers to the Carmona administration, but I think it may be helpful to spell this out somehow for the uninformed. This could go along with a possible expansion of one sentence in the lead, which might work in Pedro Carmona.
  • Venezuala, (typo)
  • at the presidential palace as events unfolded.
  • This is another misconception of the film: they arrived after many events had unfolded-- any way to fix that?
  • Link presidential palace (can someone else look up that link? I'm on dialup after a big storm).
  • Venezuelan officials
  • Venezuelan government ? or Venezuelan government officials ? or "build support for the government" government's version of events ?
Very nice work: I suggest that as soon as you finish the lead, the article is ready for GAN, and very well could be headed to FAC if stability holds.
Maybe you could be enticed to work on X-Ray of a Lie next? It's nice to have a neutral editor on board! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Replies:
  • As always, I've erred on the side of caution. :-) I thought the size of the lead was OK, based on other 40 kb articles, but I'll try to identify any major areas I've missed summarising.
  • I originally had "focuses on" instead of "covers" but removed it because of the duplication. If I swap the first, so it says, "With particular emphasis on the role of the private media in Venezuelan politics, the film focuses on several key incidents ...", does that resolve it? The "focuses on" implies a more directed gaze and so doesn't suggest that the film covered everything of note, yet isn't a rhetorical flourish that might destabilise the weighting.
  • I agree that until the mention of Chavez's return, it could be ambiguous as to which administration we refer. An uncontroversial change, I would think. Something like, "including the protest march and subsequent violence that provided the final impetus for Chávez's ousting, the formation of an interim administration headed by business leader Pedro Carmona and ..."
  • Oops. :-)
  • This one is trickier, and it's all down to my mistake in the "Background" section. If I'm reading things correctly, the filmmakers were at the palace during the day—for the supporters' assembly etc.—then when the shit hit the fan, they filmed for a while before taking to the streets, only returning to the palace in the early hours of April 12. The way "Background" is worded, that's not clear. I'll double-and-triple check the timeline and reword both that and the lead accordingly.
  • Yep, no problem including a link to Miraflores Palace.
  • That sentence as I originally wrote it was a lot longer, with lots of duplication of the words "government" and "officials". "Venezuelan officials" is a little ambiguous, so when we incorporate this I'll try to make that clearer, perhaps through an appropriate synonym for "government".
Thanks to both of you for the comments so far. Hopefully, we can set a standard here for related articles. As for X-Ray, I forgot to reply when you asked about this a couple of weeks ago; sorry. I'll take a look at the article, no problem, but I need to find time to watch the film first. :-) All the best, Steve T • C 14:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Steve, I don't recall in which source I saw mention of when the filmmakers actually got to Miraflores; perhaps you can locate that? But I'm certain they missed key initial events, which may have colored their perception or the film. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You might have got that from the background section, specifically the last passage, cited to the Austin Chronicle interview. Re-reading the interview, and knowing what I do now, I can see that I have messed up the timeline, skipping an entire day! According to the filmmakers (both in the interview and the film's narration), they do seem to have been in the palace during the early hours standoff on April 12; it was the following daytime that they stayed away and it's for this period that they had to rely on the footage from the press office cameraman. I need to recast that entire paragraph. Bah. Steve T • C 21:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Not complaining, since you're doing all the work ! Maybe put up the whole new thing again? Where were they on April 11 and before, when the resignation, Chavez's appearance on TV while the private media signals were being taken down, Plan Avila was ordered, etc? In other words, I guess I'm asking for what parts they were actually present? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Boiling it down: they were at the palace on April 11, outside with Chavez's supporters. When the opposition march came close and the violence kicked off, they filmed that for a little while. They seem to have stuck close to the palace, then went inside and stayed close to government ministers while the rest of the evening's events unfolded (the film doesn't mention Plan Avila, nor do any sources I've seen indicate that the filmmakers were aware of it). Chavez was taken away, and at some indeterminate point Bartley and O'Briain left. The April 12 daytime footage of the setting up of the interim government was that taken by the press office cameraman; the filmmakers didn't go to the palace at that point, instead taking to the streets. They returned to the palace when things turned around the following day. Steve T • C 21:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Steve ... that's what I thought ... there weren't privy to most of the key events on April 11 inside the palace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It's frustratingly vague; the few timestamps indicate that they were at the palace for most of the afternoon and evening, but they weren't privy to the higher decision-making, as Chavez and his ministers were locked in meetings for most of that time. Instead, they filmed confused-looking guards and government staff; then, when ministers reappeared, they seem to have stuck mostly with them for the rest of the night. Steve T • C 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Steve -- A few suggestions:
  • remove "encouraging viewings to build support for the government" -- this is a POV, not a fact. I'm sure there are many different reasons that officials and activists choose to show the film. For instance, perhaps some feel that it is an accurate portrayal of events, and they want to educate people. Oversimplifying it by saying that everyone who shows the film is trying to "build support of the government" is not appropriate for the lead, since it is oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy. Perhaps move this to a section discussing peoples' opinions of the film (while ensuring that we point out that this motive only applies to some people, who we can verify hold this view via reliable sources)?
  • remove "during "contentious political conjunctures" -- again this is an overgeneralization, and is giving undue weight (by putting it in the lead) to a POV which should be moved elsewhere in the article. It is shown on Venezuelan TV regularly, which is what we should say. We should not give a single POV about the motives for doing so, presented as fact.
Thus, the new sentence would read: "Venezuelan officials and independent activists have disseminated the film both officially and unofficially; the film is regularly shown on Venezuelan television."
Otherwise, I've got no complaints, at the moment. Thanks! -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe these items actually come from high quality sources, and aren't POV, but Steve will know better. I do know I've seen many sources mentioning both of these issues (but I can't remember where)-- they may be among the LexisNexis sources I added at Talk:Eva Golinger, or in the sources at Talk:X-Ray of a Lie, but I trust Steve will check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia -- I'm not questioning the reliability of the sources. I'm saying that these are subjective statements and opinions, and that we should not present them as facts in the lead. For instance "during contentious political conjectures" is a highly subjective category, vs. for example "weekdays" (i.e. the films are often shown on "weekdays") -- because of this, we should not state the claim as fact. We can state that it has been shown many times on Venezuelan television, with promotion from government officials and independent activist groups, since this is an objective, verifiable fact. Claiming that all groups show this video "to build support for the government" is inaccurate: some groups probably show it as education because they think it is an accurate portrayal, other groups might show it because they find it entertaining, others because they think it's ridiculously inaccurate and want to publicly critique how flawed and dishonest it is after viewing it. However, I am not saying that the opinions of these people are not notable, and that they shouldn't be included. Just that they shouldn't be presented as fact in the lead (especially the latter, since it is not an opinion, but is factually inaccurate due to over-generalization/simplification, as well) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You're right, actually; my summary does simplify the idea too much. I included "build support" because one use of the phrase came from a prominent inside source—Leonor Granado, the Venezuelan Consul General in New York at the time. However, my use does imply this is the only reason; as you say, activists would have others, undoubtedly linked but subtly different. Schiller (2009) examines in-depth (with an admirable neutrality) how the film is used to frame debate about the events of April 2002. It's this aspect that's important, and so I think I can reword the sentence to better reflect that. As for "contentious political junctures", I included that as a useful shorthand—a quick reference example for the way the film has been used. I don't think that's necessarily a "bad" thing either; if I believed a film was important as some see this one, I wouldn't hesitate to encourage its dissemination, especially at times when it would have the most impact. However, it is again simplistic (the film is of course shown at other times, just more so at these), so I'll tweak that too. Steve T • C 12:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Steve -- I really appreciate all the great work you're doing on this. Keep it up! -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Tweaks

Steve on this:

  • "As the crisis unfolded on 11 April, Bartley and O'Briain filmed at the palace ... "

how about filmed outside the palace, just to clarify the point above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this clarifies it somewhat. However, I might put another cite in to the film itself to clarify what they filmed and who they spent time with during the afternoon and evening of April 11. Steve T • C 22:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

GAN

Steve, are you ready to get in the GAN queue? Or prefer PR, where Ruhrfisch and Co will get to it sooner? With the GAN backlog, are there are any experienced GA film people who might pick it up? Fuchs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there are a few areas that need attention before GAN. I'm not wild about citing the Internet Movie Database, but it should be easy enough for me to source the awards to individual newspaper articles instead, so no biggie on that score. Also, given WP:MOSFILM#Plot recommends that summaries should only be 400–700 words, we could stand to lose something from the "Synopsis" section. Again, that shouldn't be too hard; copyediting alone should get rid of some of it, and now the rest of the article is more rounded there is some duplication with other sections, so we can lose some that way. The other main problem lies with the images; the poster is OK—precedent allows it for identification purposes—but the fair-use rationales for the Puente Llaguno bridge and Baralt Avenue images really need beefing up. Finally, some of the prose needs a polish; again, that shouldn't be a big deal, and I can probably sort all this in the next day or two. :-) All the best, Steve T • C 20:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I wish I could be of more help, but I'm going on five days of only dialup, utility companies still struggling here, so I'm unable to keep up with anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer review / question(s)

OK, so I opened a peer review for the article a few days ago; from what I gather (I've haven't previously submitted to PR) it's normal for it to take a while before anyone gets around to a review, so we can take this at a nice, leisurely pace. I just re-read the article from what I hope is a reviewer's perspective, and I think it's largely sound. One thing that begs a question is the statement, "[Schalk] and Thalman Urguelles were commissioned to 'produce a response' [to The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]"—does the source (AC Clark's The Revolutionary Has No Clothes) say by whom? I thought they'd done the presentation on their own initiative, then either elements of the opposition or the private media commissioned a filmed version, which became X-Ray of Lie, but I can't seem to find a source that says one way or the other. Does Clark? Steve T • C 09:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall seeing somewhere in one of the sources (but I could be wrong) that there was an internet petition signed by many ... I'm not sure where to find that info now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Found here:
An online petition was organised to complain about the film, which Mr Schalk said did not meet the ethical standards of the BBC.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Found more here:
The Federation of Venezuelan Movie Directors commissioned ... Schalk and Urguelles to produce a response to the propaganda piece ..."
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Also see previous page of AC Clark. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I can use page 91 to cite The Federation of Venezuelan Movie Directors, once we've figured out who they are. :-) Steve T • C 12:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this organisation still exist, do we know, or has it been disbanded? Other than a single hit, I can't find anything more about them. Wikispan (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling to find anything either. Is there a likely Spanish name for the group we could search under? A direct translation shows no hits, but could it be Clark's mistranslation of another group's name? There seem to be several from which to choose. Steve T • C 12:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find the name ... will be on a plane today ... but this site might give you some leads ... it does have some links to the online petition, which I haven't had time to study in detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
You may find more in this site, which is spam blacklisted ... http: //www.petitiononline.com/ gusano03/petition.html ... take out the spaces to make it work ... I'll look more once I'm home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference format

I'm thinking that how we use Schiller's "Framing the Revolution" article isn't optimal for verification; at present, we lump a very large range of pages (478–502) into one named reference. On top of that, I should be receiving Chavez – The Revolution Will Not be Televised: A Case Study of Politics and the Media in the post tomorrow, and it has about 190 pages. I'm assuming (hoping) I'll get a lot of content from that, so when it's incorporated we'll have the same problem. How do we feel about converting the references to the {{harvnb}} template or similar? I'm thinking something along the lines of this. Suggestions for alternatives are of course welcome! Steve T • C 15:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this approach. The {{harvnb}} template is nice, but I don't have a strong preference for it if there are just two resources in the bibliography. (Probably will save on KB, too, to not use it.) Erik (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of Harvnbs, but no problem from me if you want to convert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I remember your saying that once, which is why I brought it up here first. :-) Is there another good way of providing that level of targeted referencing? How would you format the refs, given the choice? Steve T • C 20:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Do whatever you think best -- don't mind me -- but my preference is to list sources that are used more than once in a separate section, givng the full info, and then just do a short manual citation to individual page nos in the text (<ref> Author (date), p. x.</ref> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so similar to what harvnb outputs, just without the template and wikilink. That pretty much ties in with Erik's suggestion above, and given the small number of works eligible for the biblio section, it makes sense. Cheers! Steve T • C 20:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

FAC nomination

The Stoneman book has added a layer of detail we were lacking before—for me, it looks the difference between a GA and FA. I don't intend to add much more from it, barring the odd tidbit I might have missed, so I'm thinking we could send the article to WP:FAC. As long as we're all happy with the content, that is. :-) Let me know any objections/suggestions you might have; otherwise, the only things left are a quick copyedit and working out who gets listed as co-nom (this would be my first FAC nom that I haven't rewritten from scratch; as I merely built on what was already here, I'm not sure who should be—or wants to be—listed). Best, Steve T • C 13:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve, it's your nom only-- you did it all. Since I've hurt my back, I haven't been able to focus on reading through the latest changes-- can you give me a few days? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
No rush at all. To make it easier on you when you read through, here's what I've done over the last few days:
  • Background: all filming material has been removed; two new paragraphs have been added at the start, to give some historical context.
  • Synopsis: no longer my own interpretation, but cited mainly to Stoneman, with a little detail from the primary source (the film).
  • New sections: Development, Filming and Editing.
  • Release: split into Television, Theatrical and Informal. Some new material in each, but mostly unchanged.
  • Analysis: moved up and added new section about the BBC and Ofcom investigations, into which I've moved the petition material, as it was directed at the European broadcasters (the BBC in particular). Also added short section on Chavez: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, Stoneman's book.
Everything else is pretty much the same as it was a few days ago. Steve T • C 14:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Re WP:ENGVAR, I'm not certain the article should be using British English, since American English is used in Venezuela. Unsure ... I think we're not supposed to change it-- how was it first written? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Context is missing here; we give the reader no idea why the private media stepped up criticism. It was the result of the Enabling Act, Chavez's abuse of cadenas (not explained anywhere on Wiki as far as I can determine), the PDVSA intervention, and several other issues-- do the sources discuss that? If not, the Brain Nelson book does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Freddy Bernal needs an article-- he's notable, mentioned in 66 Wiki articles, and Venezuelans know who he is, while linking out to the Spanish Wiki won't do our English-speaking readers any good. Does anyone have time to stub that article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, but barely a stub, needs more if someone has time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Done: that's all I've got. I left some questions, unsure about some changes, so please step back through my diffs, Steve. Looks good, except for the few issues I raised above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look. And sorry for taking to long to get back here; busy day. In order then:
  • This might have to remain a problem. The synopsis is accurate, in that the film never mentions Baduel; he is in a couple of scenes, but never named, and nothing is said of what he contributed to events. Obviously, this seems like something ripe to be discussed in the analysis section; surprisingly, however, none of the sources I have cite Baduel's absence as a point of contention, only Rincon's (whom we discuss in "Military involvement"). I'll clarify that last point, though.
  • As for ENGVAR, I must admit to having played fast and loose with the "prevailing style". By the time I'd finished my additions, without any consideration of the guideline, I realised I'd used a mix of AmE and BrE. I then went through and standardised to BrE, feeling that as an Irish film it should use that style (added to that, I wasn't sure what is used in Venezuela). I can switch that back to AmE easily if you feel it's more appropriate.
  • The "missing context" I thought I'd already included in "Background", so I didn't want to repeat myself. However, that section never really makes it clear, nor does the synopsis, so I'll add a line to that part of the "Filming" section to explain.
  • Yes, my transcription error :-)
  • Done. And I didn't even have to lift a finger!
  • I'll leave a diff/note here when I've worked through these. (Done.) Cheers, Steve T • C 21:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Edited 23:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Right then, the analysis parts aren't significantly different to how they looked a few weeks ago—the major additions have been to bog-standard elements such as filming, editing, etc—so with no comment from the other editors, I'm going to assume (I hope not erroneously) that people are content with how the article currently looks. With that in mind, in a couple of hours I think I might initiate the FAC nomination. Speak now, or forever hold, etc. Steve T • C 09:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I did just take notice of the backlog over there; I can hold off for a little while if you want. Though on the plus side, now we're done with the major expansions here, I can get back to reviewing. Steve T • C 10:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You might as well go ahead and nom it; the backlog isn't going to be reduced any time soon, considering the number of reviewers we lost at the same time, for different reasons, and sometimes a good nomination helps get things moving at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Color in "Accolades"

The dark green in the table in "Accolades" is a bit strong. Could a lighter shade be used? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Fraser and Peronism

An editor recently removed the statement that Fraser had written a book on Peronism, feeling it was irrelevant to this film. It was reverted (twice), but just in case there's still any debate to be had about this ... my feeling is that it provides vital context to Fraser's remarks and should remain. Without it, the sentence simply states that Fraser was more sceptical, without giving the reader any idea why that might be. With it, we know. Now, this doesn't strike me as a POV statement, because it goes to Fraser's thoughts alone, and does not try to force the same opinion on the reader. Indeed, the statement could even be read the other way—providing a excuse for Fraser's comments that would allow readers with certain opinions to disregard them. Believe me when I say that a hell of a lot of thought has gone into the balance of this article, with positive reactions from editors on both sides of the Chávez debate, something that seemed impossible when I first started rewriting it. So if there's still disagreement, let's discuss it here instead of engaging in a (short-lived, admittedly) edit war. I'm not around much these days, but I'll try to keep on top of this one and will respond as quickly as I can. All the best, Steve T • C 07:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I just wondered what qualification writing on Peronism gave him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs) 14:46, August 3, 2010
I'm not sure of the relevance of that question, or if I'm just parsing it incorrectly. Fraser's opinions are here because he was the commissioning editor at the BBC; that doesn't change whether he wrote the book or not. But given that we state he wanted to "get the boot in" on Chávez and he didn't think he was as stand-up a guy as the filmmakers believed, it seemed useful to include something on his background with a similar subject. Readers can draw what inference they will from that, if indeed there is any to draw. Steve T • C 19:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Gunson and TV station shutdown

Why is this individual so important to the criticism of the documentary in this article? He crops up much more often than his notability would suggest. The guy doesn't even have his own article, yet his opinions and analyses are some of the most important criticism contained within the article. I find that very worrying. ValenShephard (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A person does not need to have his own article for his analysis to be worthwhile. The source, Columbia Journalism Review, is a solidly reliable one. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
That wasnt my main argument. Why is this one article represented as a central argument for criticism? His name and his argument crop up more than 5 times. I would argue that it is giving undue weight to one opinion, from one source. And that is a real issue. ValenShephard (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no issue of undue weight here. The article's content was thoroughly discussed in a NPOV matter and went through the FAC process similarly. If you look at "Notes", you can see Stoneman and Schiller being referenced. Here is the breakdown of the inappropriate edits:
  • Not identifying the distributor as US
  • Listing release dates indiscriminately; the infobox is a summary
  • Ireland is the main production company; we do not list all countries with marginal involvement
  • Regarding the broadcasting license, we work with film-related references. The BBC article has nothing to do with the film.
  • "Manipulation" in quote marks suggests alleged, alleged "manipulation" is redundant
  • None of the critics report scores, and it is out of place to report Ebert's
I'll leave the specific Ebert write-up to others. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
What are these changes you are talking about? Only the last two have anything to do with me, and since when are we not allowed to use sources outside of film to talk about issues mentioned in a film? This makes no sense at all. Also, saying something is not useful doesn't look like an argument, it could be applied to anything. And lastly, is a featured article perfection that cannot be amended, changed, added to? Saying there is no issue with undue weight doesn't make it so, as the old children's argument goes. You have not given me actual arguments, based on wiki policy, that my changes should not stay. Why is it unhelpful to explain the background behind the shut down of those channels? I find it very helpful. To a reader who doesn't know the circumstances, they will assume that they were shut down because of the split screen issue argument, which is only partly true. ValenShephard (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You reverted these edits I made. If you are going to revert me, please be more precise. In addition, we cannot repeat an event's entire history in a documentary's article. Would you want to repeat the subject matter ad nauseum in every documentary ever made? The key is to provide links to articles about these events, and keep documentaries tightly focused on coverage related to them. In addition, please review past discussions of this documentary on this talk page and the FAC page. Featured Articles can change, yes, but with the consideration put in for this historically volatile article, it is pretty well-set. I do not see need to cast doubt on Columbia Journalism Review; there are many sources used here, such as Stoneman and Schiller. Gunson is identified frequently in the article to provide attribution, so they do not sound like sweeping claims made, but a given academic's analysis. It's actually quite neutral in that presentation. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
And apparently it's not an issue that Bartley and Ó Briain crop up just as many times, despite the fact it's their film and that they're not likely to be independent? Interesting... Erik (talk | contribs) 12:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The issue is not how many times his name is used, but how much weight is given to his argument. The argument of this one man in his one publication proliferates in certain parts of the article. Why is this so? I am not saying anything about the other sources, Stoneman et al. Events entire history? The closure of those TV stations is very contentious, and there needs to be some clarification. The current edit allows many presumptions to be made, and adding half a sentence is not such a controversial thing. For such a contentious issue, what is wrong with explaining the actual circumstances? What it says now would be liable to make the reader presume that the shutdowns were direct consequences of the split-screen issue and nothing else. Why would that be acceptable? (I didnt say that how common the filmmakers appear is not controversial. I am not making sweeping generalisations, I am talking about one or a few issues I have seen today.) ValenShephard (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
From what I can tell, Bartley and Ó Briain counter Gunson and vice versa. Are you considering Gunson a minority view? This documentary is not highly prominent, so we're not going to have rock star academics analyzing it. Do you find the point and counterpoint arrangement, Columbia Journalism Review and directors, to be a bad thing? I messaged the primary editor of this article, Steve, who pretty much made the article the way it is. He can probably explain his inclusion of Gunson here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont think the views of the filmmakers are overtly positive and praising as the views of a critic are criticism. Hard to explain. I dont think they cancel eachother out just because the filmmakers have their say as much as another individual criticisms them, one is much more overt criticism compared to one which is much less like overt praise. Even so, the other issue of giving context (the lack of which is one of the more common criticisms of the film) to the issue of the TV station closures is important. I dont see any real issue with it. Its not POV, its not undue weight, its reliably sourced. Its half a sentence which gives alot of context to a very contentious issue which is central to alot of Venezuela and Chavez related articles. ValenShephard (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's have Steve explain the intent of the structure. Maybe you don't mean it, but I did not like the implication that the article was written to push a certain point of view. Steve came to this article as a content-building mediator, and his contributions underwent review, so if anything appears amiss to you, it can't be "very worrying" or "a real issue". Regarding historical context, I'm just wary of how people pick up their history books and try to synthesize corrections in a specific topic like this, like, "No, no, this is what happened." I'd rather see such references applied to articles about the events themselves. It's particularly a problem with fictional works that have a historical basis. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't claim that the article is POV. I just found the use of one source and one man to make up so much criticism and the fact that the closure of TV stations is not given a proper context or explanation, leaving it open for some assumptions. This seems odd to me. I dont like the idea of leaving issues up to presumptions of readers, or the possibility ot drawing the wrong conclusion based on what came before a statement. (Mentioning the split screen issue in oppositional TV, and then in the next sentence talking about how Chavez shut down these TV channels. It seems to me that these could be synthesized together) I dont think I want to argue with the turn of events described in the film or change the article majorly, I just had these two issues which I wanted more information on. ValenShephard (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Columbia Journalism Reivew is a high quality source for an article of this nature-- it is not overrepresented, and there is nothing left out that would result in UNDUE. We also should avoid overdescribing the actual events here, rely on links to those articles, and let the reader draw their own conclusions, sticking here to what film reviewers said. This is a film article, not a history article. Synthesis of historical events, as portrayed in fiction, is not what we should be engaging in here. Another part that you're missing, overlooking or unaware of, Valen, is that there is much more criticism of this film that is left out of the article, as Steve carefully balanced the text he included to avoid repetition. If anything, a good deal of criticism is left out-- I feel Steve did a good job of presenting an overview, and if you start chunking back in what you call "praise" with specific quotes, that balance is going to be upset, and then more "criticism" will be needed to offset-- not the best way to build a neutral Wiki article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we should let the reader make their own mind up too, but what if the text aids them in reaching a conclusion which is not totally accurate. This is what could happen here. You read that oppositional TV did a split-screen of Chavez with videos of protestors, that is one issue, then you read straight after that he "subsequently" which means "afterwards, in response to" shut down the TV channels. The natural assumption is that the shutdown was a direct consequence of that contention over the use of split-screen. And that is not the whole picture. ValenShephard (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, so now that your concern is more clearly understood-- patience, discussion, collaboration. Wait for Steve to come online and weigh in, wait to see what other editors say, collaborate so that all of us together can decide if/how that text should be adjusted, propose changes on talk, don't edit war. Steve has all the sources-- not everyone working here does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. But still, I dont think it can be so contentious to add a little half sentence to explain that the shutdown of TV stations was not a direct consequence of only the contentious use of split-screen imagery. ValenShephard (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That may be your opinion and synthesis of historical events-- we need to reflect reliable sources. And if we are to expand all of the reasons here for the limitations on press freedom under Chavez, the film article will quickly veer off track and back into POV. We should focus here on what reliable sources say about the film, and avoid introducing our own POV and opinions about the historical events. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont think a half sentence explaining the full picture (or fuller picture) of the reasons behind the shutdown is a such a controversial things. From sources in the Chavez article the shut down happened because of: the station supporting the coup openly, not paying taxes (possibly as a protest) and Chavez choosing not to renew their broadcast license. I am not trying to enter into greater examinations of these issues in thie article, but a few words to add a context for the shutdown is critial in having a NPOV, not leading the reader into possibly inaccurate conclusions. I tried to add a source which said that the shutdown was due to unrenewed broadcast license (as opposed to contention over the use of a controversial splitscreen) and this was removed with the vague reasoning of "not helpful". ValenShephard (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we are going to go back and forth on this; would you mind waiting for Steve to weigh in? He worked with a lot of references in this article, and I'm sure he can make a clarifying statement or find some kind of amendment to implement. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, Valen, your summary above about why press freedom was limited in Venezuela is incomplete and seems to reflect bias or selective reading of sources-- there is much more to the story, that is (still) not included in our POV Wiki articles, and is precisely why those articles are still POV. That POV problem is exactly what we should avoid in this article, which focuses on what reliable sources say about the film. This article had avoided the POV wars on other Chavez articles, precisely because of Steve's neutral and valuable experience at relying on high quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I didnt try to summarise press freedom generally, but the shutdown of RCTV which is what is the issue within this article. That is what my three points were about, the shutdown of RCTV, not all press and media freedon, I dont want to make any judgements of that massive issue in this article. And yes, I will wait for Steve to weigh in, but I dont want to attribute too much authority to him as a single user. ValenShephard (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough-- now, patience :) We will get there, via collaboration and discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Affiliated --> associated

I can't locate the source just now, but it seems to me that "affiliated" was the actual word used by one source-- unsure, perhaps Steve can comment when he comes online. [1] I don't know whether to restore Jr's "alleged", since in a film article that includes film reviews, everything the reviewers say is "opinion" or "alleged", so we can't add "alleged" to all of their writing-- it is implied.[2] Unsure what to do with that one, so could we please wait to hear from Steve, who has all the sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If it were opinion about the film then we can just directly say what the sources say. But when authors make contested claims about historical facts (i.e. that the producers manipulated/doctored the film to be misleading) while talking about the film, we should ensure that people don't think those are facts. That is, if we are saying "Bob thought the film was terrible.", then we don't need 'alleged'. But when we say "Bob thought the film was terrible because they killed babies while producing it.", then I think we should say "allegedly killed babies" if there is not a consensus of sources that agree with this, so that the casual reader who is skimming through doesn't get the mistaken impression that it is a fact that they killed babies. Anyhow, that's my reasoning. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with these assertions. I generally am against an overuse of "supposedly", "apparently", "allegedly", but in this case its fine. Its making a clear distinction between opinions and sourced facts. ValenShephard (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Steve can better comment, but the problem in this case is that reliable sources do support the manipulation in the film. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
And other sources disagree. The image I am getting is that the filmmakers took acceptable artistic and stylistic liberties with their material, for the sake of flow and coherence. Something pretty standard in documentary features, as far as I know. They didnt take it too far, and I definately don't think they had an overt agenda. They mostly portrayed events as they happened, in the thick of it, as Ebert among others explain. Its hard to be partial when you are documenting events in real time. Their cuts and edits are standard procedure apparently. ValenShephard (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Again, those are all your opinions of the film, which have no place here, and we need to stick to what reliable sources say and avoid introducing our own POV. When we start introducing "allegedly" into a film article, it's hard to know where to stop, since a lot of the text by nature will be film reviewer opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I based those assumptions on what I have read in this article, and the sources in it. But "yeah" to the rest of what you said. ValenShephard (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Revolution_Will_Not_Be_Televised_(film)/Archive_2&oldid=1078758013"