Talk:American Fiction (film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Fiction (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

Lead section

@GoneIn60: I'm not sure why the clear policies of WP:LEAD needs further explanation. The guidelines say the lead section should summarize not supplant the article body. Details should be in the article body first. Not all details are WP:DUE additional extra emphasis in the lead section.

On the other matter of white spaces, while I understand that some editors do not like white space there is no good reason to format lists inconsistently within the same article and even the same Infobox. If you object to whitespaces it would be more consistent to remove them from all lists in the Infobox. (A key benefit of wiki markup is that is more easily human readable than other markup such as XML, it seems a misunderstanding of the history of wiki to not want clearer markup with tidy spacing. Also any performance benefit of a little less whitespace is not worth worrying about WP:DWAP.) -- 109.76.128.3 (talk) 04:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information in lead

IP editor: Wikipedia guidelines state that the introductory section of an article (known as the lead) should summarize the content of the article. The paragraph that you have added appears to be original research that does not summarize what is in the article. There is no discussion of "Black familial tropes, artistry versus commerciality, identity in the face of failure, and artistic integrity" in the article body. voorts (talk/contributions) 07:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s 100% original research and has been reverted. If they keep adding their opinions and don’t discuss here, then the article can be protected. Mike Allen 09:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your reversion because in the interim, several critical reviews were added and copy edited by a new editor. voorts (talk/contributions) 10:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the section again of what the IP wrote. Mike Allen 10:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This “new editor” is writing the same original research. Their only edits are on this page, along with the IP. This is very problematic. Mike Allen 10:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this section that was added by the new editor: The film has consistently been lauded for its ability to interject humor while addressing nuanced, dramatic themes. Audiences saw this as a refreshing take on African American stories because Black narratives, especially dramas, were often treated with a heavy gravitas, coupled with deep anguish and trauma.

Now I see your concerns. voorts (talk/contributions) 10:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the material should be restored, the OR can be deleted, and the NPOV section can be properly tagged and @Winterblanket333 should have the opportunity to review the neutral point of view policy and make changes accordingly. voorts (talk/contributions) 10:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The actual reviews have been. But not the synthesized summary above it. Mike Allen 10:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. @Winterblanket333: I encourage you to reply here so that we can work together to make the article better. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MikeAllen: RE your edit summary: Did you not read the whole section on Wright? WP:PUFFERY and WP:NPOV I did, which is why I tagged the section with {{over-quotation}}. And, after I added that tag, a new editor, @Winterblanket333, started making significant cuts and toning down the language. I would be fine with tagging the section with NPOV and puffery tags as well, but I don't think that content containing cites to several reliable sources should be removed before editors have an opportunity to fix it. voorts (talk/contributions) 10:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images in Critical response section

It feels redundant to have the same pictures of Wright and Brown repeated in the Critical response section (they are already pictured in the cast section). I think it would be best to just remove those images from the Critical response section. -- 109.76.203.128 (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is too, thus it has been

Removed. Mike Allen 15:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wanted to float the idea today before doing it tomorrow. -- 109.76.203.128 (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section identical to text in IMDB plot synopsis

I have no idea which came first, but, if it is the IMDB section, I feel that the source should at least be acknowledged here. 2601:646:9601:11A0:9D6B:A350:ABDD:59DC (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The summary was added by @Scdsco: on January 4, 2024 and differs slightly from the IMDb version. Mike Allen 19:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia synopsis came first and was original writing by me. You can check the dates. Whoever edited the IMDB copy and pasted from here. Scdsco (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logical problem in the plot?

I like this film very much, but isn't there a strange contradiction within the story? The idea to play with different possible endings is nice, however it implies that the movie (I mean the movie within the movie) doesn't picturize the book "Fuck" any more although they payed millions of dollars for the rights to do so. I know, there is a short sequence in which Monk decides to propose a new idea for the film, so this could mean that Monk introduces a framework around the "Fuck"-story, but this means (at least to me) that the director (the person in the movie) should realize the irony and sarcasm of the whole plot. However, he seems to be as simple-minded and free of irony as before. Can someone find an explanation to solve this puzzle? Nessaalk (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional remark: It is clear to me that this site shouldn't be a forum to discuss the movie, but if the community comes to a consensus that there are logically problematic parts in the plot, one could reflect this also in the article. If my question is answered by another user and the riddle is solved, we could also put this item to the archive. Nessaalk (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]