Talk:The Woman King

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

Historical accuracy[edit]

I removed the "Historical accuracy" section here per WP:FILMHIST, "For films based on history or science, analysis should be based on reliable published secondary sources that compare the film with history or with science. If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license." In essence, editors cannot use history books to provide their own analysis of whether or not the work is accurate. However, it is very likely that upon the film's release, there will be historians who provide feedback on its accuracy or lack thereof, and we can reference them then. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a similar section here. It remains to be seen how the film will portray the kingdom's relationship to slavery, and as stated above, if there are issues with historical accuracy, historians and related commentators will respond directly about the film. Editors cannot pluck out a history book and try to indicate a conclusion themselves. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this today that has comments from the filmmakers about their approach. One passage writes, "She said, 'Can you imagine if one day we actually made a movie about this amazing group of female soldiers who caused such an act of resistance that slavery paused for a time?' recalled Schulman, who was then an executive at STX Entertainment. This detail could be used in conjunction with feedback from sources independent of the film once it is released. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to A person in Georgia for adding this for the budget, and it also has this relevant passage about historical accuracy:

Since it is derived from real history, the Woman King story is more complex than a simple hero’s tale — and the accuracy of the film has been a subject of speculation even before its first public screening. In mid-August, The 1619 Project author Nikole Hannah-Jones tweeted, “It will be interesting to see how a movie that seems to glorify the all-female military unit of the Dahomey deals with the fact that this kingdom derived its wealth from capturing Africans for the trans-Atlantic slave trade.” The film does tackle that subject — Davis’ Nanisca objects to her king’s practice of selling war prisoners into slavery, and advocates for a different policy. “When I came aboard, those were some of the first conversations,” Prince-Bythewood says, of the depiction of the slave trade. “But it was, ‘We’re going to tell the truth. We’re not going to shy away from anything.’ But also we’re telling a part of the story which is about overcoming and fighting for what’s right. And I think we got it right.”

Not sure if it is worth starting a "Historical accuracy" section based on these recent items, or better to wait for release and feedback from independent sources?

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wait for release. A person in Georgia (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur then. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik I hope someone completes this section soon. Came to Wikipedia looking for this section before deciding whether to see the film and to keep in mind during the film if I did decide to go 74.77.38.78 (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This section needs to be created. The first sentence of the entry defines the film as an 'historical epic' and many sources are noting it's inaccurate depiction of well-documented Agojie / Mino history. If the Washington Examiner is not considered a reliable published secondary source, would commentary by the President of the American Historical Society qualify? Blocking creation of this section marginalizes spoken history of Cudjo Lewis and others. 96.241.2.62 (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source from History vs. Hollywood to use. It looks like it can cover which characters were real or fictionalized, the background of slavery, the kingdom's relationship with Europe and Oyo, and palm oil production as an alternative to slavery (proposed by the protagonist in the film). It can be used to start off the section. Will look out for more sources. There is some commentary from film critics based on the festival screening, but likely more commentary will be forthcoming from historians and others once it is in theaters. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started a "Historical accuracy" section. Please share feedback and other sources here (or use in the article body). Use in-text attribution when quoting or when there is speculation (like I did with History vs. Hollywood). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has the following passages that could be cited as part of fuller coverage once the film is publicly released:

Some have been skeptical of how “The Woman King” tackles history. Last month, the 1619 Project author Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote on Twitter that “it will be interesting to see how a movie that seems to glorify the all-female military unit of the Dahomey deals with the fact that this kingdom derived its wealth from capturing Africans for the trans-Atlantic slave trade.”

The Agojie were indeed a brutal and bloodthirsty army that participated in slave raids. “The Woman King,” like most historical epics, takes some artistic license. But the slave trade is a central component to its narrative. Schulman says the 1820s were chosen from the 1600-1904 history of the Dahomey kingdom specifically for the backdrop of conflict with the mightier Oyo empire, along with mounting pressure from European colonizers for captives.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of more sources about the film's historical accuracy. There is more information than needed, I think, and it's hard to tell at this tpoint what context is relevant or not. For example, while History vs. Hollywood mentioned the Elephant and Fly political parties, and I initially included that mention, a second look showed no reviews mentioning them, so I removed that mention as not being pertinent enough. Please share other relevant sources here, and we can discuss what subsections to have. We can integrate multiple sources as needed. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik, eliminating Elephant and Fly parties context posited by Yoder (1974) invalidates his argument that any Mino took a position favoring trading in palm oil over slaves, which in turn obstructs opportunity to cite others to demonstrate that Yoder (1974) is the only academic source that presents that position. The claim that the Mino/Agojie advocated for palm oil is simply unsupported by the research. History vs. Hollywood is not as reliable as the Smithsonian and use of the former for historical context should be replaced by the latter. I'm not sure if National Review's piece can be considered neutral even if it is accurate. Regardless, as long as a minority view is cited, then majority view should also be included per WP:NPOV. Dux96 (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only reverted per WP:FILMHIST because it is inappropriate to use reliable sources that are not connected with the film per WP:SYNTH. There are two general approaches that can be done here: 1.) use reliable sources comparing film to history, and improve the comparison as more sources come out, or 2.) mention what happens in the film (Nanisca proposing palm oil production), then have an anchor link to Dahomey Amazons#Political role with that section using reliable sources about the history to show whether or not the Agojie actually advocated for that and why (or why not). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik A third option is to simply delete History vs Hollywood's reference to palm oil vs slave trading since it does not cite an the actual reference (WP:SWYRT) and History vs. Hollywood is not a reliable source (WP:SOURCE). Because HvH only broadly cites a journal and not the actual article, the only way to infer HvH's reference is with the understanding that the existence of the Elephant/Fly parties is conjecture from a single academic. If we exercise your option 1), then we should also cite Yoder to clarify the source material, then provide discussion showing source disagreement with Yoder's as the minority view (WP:NPOV).
I agree that Dahomey Amazons#Political role needs editing to reflect academic majority consensus that Agojie did not advocate for palm oil trading. Dux96 (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change and used Smithsonian to have a different highlight instead, but I encourage editors to be on the lookout about reliable sources about the historical accuracy of the Agojie in relation to palm oil production (or about that as a general alternative to slavery, along with why it was not sustained). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This titled, "The compatibility of the slave and palm oil trades in Dahomey, 1818–1858", could be used at Dahomey, perhaps, and an anchor link to that passage provided. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a piece by historian Ana Lucia Araujo that should be used here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC) Additional sources:[reply]

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik would it make sense to create an outline under historical accuracy to organize contested historical elements (similar to Braveheart article). Topics could i(nclude fictional Santo Ferreira vs real Francisco Félix de Sousa; fictional General Nanisca vs real Seh-Dong-Hong-Beh; fiction title role 'woman king' vs actual role Kpojito ('queen mother') and Mae-hae-pah role (ceremonial leader of Ahosi); fictional confrontations between Ahosi and male Dahomey soldiers vs recorded confrontations between Ahosi and Dohamian soldiers; depicted palm oil / slave trading compatibility vs actual; depicted military indoctrination and training vs actual; depicted Dahomian defense against neighboring nations vs. actual Dahomian aggression. Probably additional topics, as others may contribute ... Dux96 (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subsections can follow the content available that compares the film to history. I'll have to look at the sources again, but I think for some characters, a distinct subsection is not warranted. Maybe the current "Characters" subsection could have "Ghezo" as a sub-subsection, considering his direct real-life correlation and related coverage, and "Other characters" to group the rest? Thoughts? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The historical accuracy section as it now stands (Sept. 2023) is thin, bland, and misleading due to omissions. There is a lot of secondary material cited on this talk page that could be -- should be -- used. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:5C2A:A965:7848:31 (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence[edit]

Per MOS:FIRST, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." We cannot assume that a film's director should be named in the first sentence for every single film, as no policy or guideline supports that. In the context of this film, sharing the premise of the film in the first sentence is the most notable context. MOS:CONTEXTLINK says, "The first sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable." Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audience reception[edit]

Per MOS:FILM#Audience reception, user ratings are not to be included in film articles. See the link for more details about this. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception[edit]

A person in Georgia, regarding your ongoing expansion of the "Critical reception" section, we should avoid WP:SYNTH sentences like, "Many critics called The Woman King a crowd-pleaser and positively compared it to acclaimed historical epics from previous years." We cannot group four individual critics together and make this synthesized claim. Only sentences with directly attributable trend observations like the Rotten Tomatoes editorials can be used to make broad claims. Same thing with the sentence, "The film's representation of history and culture divided many reviewers," which is WP:WEASEL wording. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Rotten Tomatoes editorial here, I think we need to use it with care. We need to focus only on trends explicitly defined, and sometimes sources like the editorial will simply list quotes by theme. For the latter, we should not SYNTHesize individual quotes. For this film, the source actually only says that the cast was commended, particularly Davis and Mbedu, and that the action choreography was praised, and that there were issues with the script. I don't think it's appropriate to look at the individual quotes and say that its direction and production design were praised, as RT did not explicitly highlight these. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing[edit]

Possible source to use for a "Marketing" section, subsection, or paragraph. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Social commentary[edit]

Depending on what is actually written upon release, there could be a "Social commentary" section to pool commentary that is not primarily film criticism or historical comparing and contrasting (though these could complement that commentary). For example, The Conversation has here commentary about the growing interest in the women warriors. There could be other angles like tying in with African and African-American representation, how this film fits or does not fit with past historical epics, or the appropriateness of having a film about these warriors who are part of an institution that engaged in slavery. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References to use. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence correction[edit]

This movie is more correctly described as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_fiction and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history. The first sentence; "a 2022 American historical epic film" is wrong. The first sentence should be changed to "a 2022 American historical fiction", "a 2022 American historical fiction film based on an alternate history", or "a 2022 American alternate history film". The gross mischaracterization of the entire objective history of the tribe, it's motivations, it's actions, it's relationship with other parties -- and the women soldiers effectiveness -- mean that this is not "historical epic" film. It is alternate history or historical fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical epic" is supported by reliable sources and does not impart historical accuracy. Braveheart and Gladiator and others are known as historical epics despite their own historical inaccuracies. Same deal with biopics. The genre classification is a nominal one, and a film's historical accuracy or lack thereof can be shared in the article body, as it is here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critics Consensus[edit]

Why is the Rotten Tomatoes consensus being excluded here? Adding the consensus is common practice for the critical reception section, and it's an inclusion that I for one have certainly always appreciated and found helpful. Wikipedia is the first place I go when looking up a movie's reception, the consensus is a standard aspect of that, and I'm certainly not alone with this. Every (notable) movie receives one critic consensus from Rotten Tomatoes, which is something that is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article on the film, especially when there is an entire section devoted to critical reception.

It might not be the strongest consensus they've ever written, but not including it for that reason feels like a completely subjective decision. Even The Emoji Movie's consensus is included, and that was literally just an emoji. NickH (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should include the critics' consensus (or better, a paraphrasing of it) only when it is useful. It is already established that the film was well-received and that Viola Davis was praised for her role. In this case, the consensus is redundant and WP:SLANGish, especially when it lacks detail. Why does it rule? I recall the critics' consensus being excluded on similar grounds for a couple of other films, like one film having a one-word critics' consensus. I've removed it at The Emoji Movie for that reason also. We need to avoid WP:SLANG here and with individual reviews too. This is a big problem with universally panned films where critics will come up with the funniest way to dunk on the film, and most of their writing can be passed over for that reason. Anyway, usually the critics' consensus will be good, though it really should be paraphrased more often, but there will be some unhelpful summaries (like this one) once in a while. If you want to have a wider discussion about it, bring it up at WT:FILM. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The features[edit]

The king of the Oyo Empire (Oba) is a very notable feature. Everyone was widely talked about in this article linking out to their pages except the Nigerian actor. Why is that? Even the part that listed the casts at the beginning of the content, he wasn't acknowledged there. 105.112.59.253 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to how we name the starring actors at the top of the article, it is usually based on the billing block. It looks like he is named in the "Cast" section with about a dozen other actors who were not named at the top. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Role in Slavery[edit]

This segment minimalizes the movie's portrayal of slavery. It implies one scene is erroneous. Can it be rewritten? 2.27.112.1 (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can do this yourself, but it needs to be cited to reliable sources. If you don't want to do it yourself, then you should state what, specifically, you feel should be added. WP Ludicer (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table of contents?[edit]

Where's the ToC for this longish article? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:5C2A:A965:7848:31 (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content[edit]

I don't agree with the out-of-place insertion of controversy-related content in solely the lead section but am open to the possibility of referencing this content in the article body. Pinging A person in Georgia who worked on the article, about this inclusion. Perhaps a "Social media reactions" subsection under the "Release" section with clear WP:INTEXT attribution about who said what. Or even "Social commentary" for non-review write-ups about the film's portrayal. To put it only in the lead section in highly-condensed form feels pointed. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic edits[edit]

Merzostin (talk · contribs) is making numerous problematic edits:

  • Trying to add the Rotten Tomatoes audience score when audience scores are generally not permitted (unless there is sourced commentary about such scores)
  • Trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by insisting on the fact that "the movie was the center of large-scale controversy" and forcefully shoehorning commentary not from film critics into the "Critical reception" section when a "Historical accuracy" section already exists
    They also position this shoehorned content above actual film critics, violating WP:UNDUE in terms of prominent placement
  • Engaging in WP:SYNTH and WP:WEASEL wording to make broader claims

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So much wrong here, Merzostin is not editing constructively. It has been going on for a while. I think you just need to escalate this to admins already. -- 109.76.192.22 (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also "not editing constructively" is what you are doing, instead of erasing other reviewers, you could edit so it could present the opinion in a way that fit the rules but nope, you want to present the movie as if it's completely positive, that no one think negatively of the movie which was false and backed by many other reviewers, this should be presented as this was the reason for the relatively low box office. Merzostin (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is so much wrong here. This was a storm in a teacup and this film was fast forgetten, maybe this might count as an exceptional case but I remain skeptical and do not think this is WP:DUE the attention. Merzostin belatedly provided a single secondary source, I think more needs to be done but I'm out of here, it is not getting any more of my attention. -- 109.76.202.116 (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the movie is a center of huge controversy, i propose a controversy section as the movie depict sensitive and controversial history Django Unchained, since you don't agree about negative opinion or "shoehorning" Merzostin (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, the wording mixed to positive should not be used, especially when both RT and MC said reviews were positive. Wikipedia Project film has consistently said not to do this. stop equivocating, stop trying to ignore the review aggregators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48?wprov=srpw1_1#Mixed_to_positive_%2F_Mixed_to_negative -- 109.76.202.116 (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erik overcorrected slightly and removed Cinemascore and PostTrak entirely[1] but it wasn't properly sourced so I supposed the WP:BURDEN is on anyone who wants to restore it to first find the source make sure it is properly referenced before they add it back. (Hint: I figured the source was probably a Deadline article already referenced somewhere in the article but I wasn't going to dig into the article or the edit history to find it.) -- 109.76.131.136 (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The restoration of this pointed and shoehorned passage, despite some revisions, was problematic. I've gone ahead and done the following:

  • Moved the shoehorned passage out of a section intended to summarize how film critics received the film into its own subsection under "Historical accuracy"
  • Quoted Los Angeles Times directly per WP:INTEXT to be clear about what has been said, rather than some editor coaching it in their own biased words
  • Removed historical-accuracy details which are covered elsewhere in the "Historical accuracy" section by sources directly critiquing the film's portrayal of history
  • Removed synthesis passage; editors are not allowed to string together individual commentaries to claim a broad trend that was not claimed by any of the sources
  • Added countercriticism about hashtag that was conveniently left out
  • Summarized The Conversation's coverage, which did a great job covering the various angles

Seriously, let's be more cognizant that editors can behave in a RIGHTGREATWRONGS way, which is disruptive editing and violates WP:POV. Wikipedia is supposed to report about disputes in a disinterested way. When in doubt, quote reliable sources directly as they cover a controversy or controversies, or stick closely to what they say. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik:, @Merzostin: is back at it. I have also been in similar editing disputes with this user on The Little Mermaid (2023 film). The user just spits out "WP:NPOV" in edit summaries with no real substance behind their communication efforts. This is disruptive and appear that they are the one actually pushing a POV. If this continues, it should be escalated to WP:ANI. Mike Allen 16:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The general consensus is to avoid just "Controversy" sections. WP:POVNAMING is the applicable policy here. I'm open to other possible section titles, it's just that "Controversy" is too broad and non-neutral on its own. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
which general consensus? Controversy is neutral, while you are trying to push your own propaganda and being non-neutral in not presenting the controversy surrounding the movie like good article such as Django Unchained, which also had controversy section that can be expanded.
this should be escalated to WP:ANI, since you two both are "teaming up" to harrass an editor simply because you want to erase contorversy surrounding movies Merzostin (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please open a report up. Let's really get to the bottom of your edits. Mike Allen 18:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
interesting that you didn't response when i said good article such as Django Unchained had controversy section, you never want to improve the article instead you want to push your own bias and propaganda, please open a report too Merzostin (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is WP:POVNAMING. There is an essay that expands on it here: WP:CSECTION. As for Django Unchained, Good Articles are reviewed by one other editor, and that article's reviewer may not have been aware of this. The point is that just "Controversy" is a cheap catch-all. Please feel free to suggest other section headings. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the WP:CSECTION policy clearly stated that "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies" instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident"
read WP:CSECTION "Approaches to presenting criticism" section.
this refer to specific controversies, but when it's not specific we can use controversy section but with subsection titles indicating what these are about). Django Unchained's controversy section was the prime example of this.
then i suggest to put a "subsection titles" to the controversy section Merzostin (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Woman_King&oldid=1214400124"