The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that films starring actress Louise Franklin were banned in Memphis, Tennessee, by the film censor because they depicted African-Americans as "well-dressed, intelligent, acting sweethearts"? Source: "Shades of the late Lloyd Binford, who banned Rochester and Louise Franklin in "Brewster's Millions," and others because they portrayed well-dressed, intelligent acting sweethearts in the films." - Talk of the Week, The Call
ALT1: ... that a film starring African-American actress Louise Franklin in a role showcasing "well-dressed, intelligent acting sweethearts" was banned by the film censor in Memphis, Tennessee?
Overall: Nice work. "1930's" and "50's" should be changed to "1930s", "1950s" etc. per MOS:DECADES, but I won't delay approval of this DYKN over this issue. Epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
The WTDYK discussion looked like it was resolving towards "... that films starring African-American actress Louise Franklin in roles showcasing "well-dressed, intelligent acting sweethearts" were banned by the film censor in Memphis, Tennessee?". Are there any objections to that? Vaticidalprophet 09:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't see evidence that more than one of the censored films starred Louise Franklin. —Kusma (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Fine, how's the Alt I added above? SilverserenC 12:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The text to source integrity is better now; the main issue I see with that is that the "sweethearts" refers not just to Franklin's character, but also to that of Eddie "Rochester" Anderson. I still do not think the source is particularly good (a throwaway comment about the censor in an opinionated article on a different film) so I would still suggest to try to find a better sourced hook. —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions, Kusma? I considered the banning of her film to be one of the most interesting parts of her article. The rest is more general being in films info. SilverserenC 22:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, you could try to work with the actual words of the censor Lloyd Binford (a rather unpleasant white supremacist) instead of letting someone else put words in his mouth. See this scholarly article, for example, which has some of the quotes about Brewster's Millions (1945 film). BTW I think there is indeed another film involving Franklin that was censored by Binford: A Song Is Born, where Franklin seems to have an uncredited part. Unfortunately most of the sources I have found do not focus on Franklin. —Kusma (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I've added another alt, Kusma. SilverserenC 03:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
That seems covered by the source, although it seems they only used her in distance shots and didn't use her voice so the switch wouldn't be noticed. —Kusma (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I suppose at this point it would be best to get a fresh review, with the focus being on ALT2. SilverserenC 01:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the film banning is the story here, and that's what the hook should be about. If the sourcing for ALT1 isn't right, then let's find better sourcing. RoySmith(talk) 18:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Hawks also claimed that he was asked not to position "the Negroes and the white musicians too close together" during their scenes. According to a Dec 1948 Var item, Lloyd T. Binford, head of the Memphis board of censors, banned the film in that city, complaining that "'it shows a rough rowdy bunch of musicians of both colors. It is supposed to be about the birth of jazz music in New Orleans. There is no segregation.'"
I'll also note that I'm usually excited to learn new words and thus expand my vocabulary. Researching this, I learned "sepian", which left me the opposite of excited.
Adequate sourcing: - There were a few entries in the "Filmography" section that did not have sources. For example, the entire "TV series" subsection is unsourced, although it's pretty short, and some of the films are also unsourced. I missed this in the initial review; sorry about that.
Overall: Just one issue that I forgot to check in the previous review, but otherwise ALT2 looks good to go. Regarding source–text integrity, I think that issue was specifically limited to the quote used for ALT0. I randomly selected a few sources from the remainder of the article, and they seemed to check out. Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
For now, Epicgenius, I've removed all of the unreferenced films and the tv show. I'll add things back in as I find references for them. SilverserenC 21:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I'd say this is good to go, then. Epicgenius (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Nice work. "1930's" and "50's" should be changed to "1930s", "1950s" etc. per MOS:DECADES, but I won't delay approval of this DYKN over this issue. Epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I suppose at this point it would be best to get a fresh review, with the focus being on ALT2. SilverserenC 01:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
on ALT2 as the replacement hook, Narutolovehinata5. SilverserenC 21:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- There were a few entries in the "Filmography" section that did not have sources. For example, the entire "TV series" subsection is unsourced, although it's pretty short, and some of the films are also unsourced. I missed this in the initial review; sorry about that.
Just one issue that I forgot to check in the previous review, but otherwise ALT2 looks good to go. Regarding source–text integrity, I think that issue was specifically limited to the quote used for ALT0. I randomly selected a few sources from the remainder of the article, and they seemed to check out. Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I'd say this is good to go, then. Epicgenius (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)