This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from Being Canadian appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 June 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
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 the documentary comedy films Being Canadian and When Jews Were Funny explore the filmmakers' cultural identity through interviews with dozens of comedians? Source: Playback magazine: "Robert Cohen's film about rediscovering his national identity" Hollywood Reporter: "Being Canadian trots out an endless array of celebrities, an alarming number of them comic talents, who hail from the Great White North." Realscreen: "So I just was looking for a way to talk about my Jewish identity and I thought that using the window of Jewish comedians would make it a little more accessible to people." CBC: "Zweig interviews dozens of men (and a couple of women), from old Borscht Belt veterans like Shecky Greene and Shelley Berman to up-and-comers like Andy Kindler and Marc Maron."
ALT1: ... that the documentary comedy films Being Canadian and When Jews Were Funny examine the comedic perspective of invisible outsiders? Source: Esquire "nobody outside of Canada would know it. This seems to me the defining feature of Canadian ethnicity: It is invisible." The Times of Israel: "he found himself exploring a much deeper issue of assimilation, modernization, and the mighty serious link between successful humor and outsider status."
Comment: Requesting 1 May or otherwise in early May for Canadian Jewish Heritage Month. We've missed May so requesting 1 July for Canada Day. The hook facts could be loglines about either film; the remarkable thing is that the two films are so similar. Citations may have to be added after picking the best hook; I'm also open to other hooks.
@TonyTheTiger: Thanks for the review! I've done some additional paraphrasing. For WJWF, one source still has over 10% Earwig score due to proper names and the quote from the TIFF jury, which I'd prefer to keep. For BC, the 13 and 14% scores are from proper names; the 17% score is from an illustrative review quote which I'd prefer to keep. As for citations, I feel it's up to DYK standards. The Synopsis sections are essentially the same as Plot sections for a non-documentary, using the work itself as the source. Are there any specific places you would like to be cited? (or in general if you feel there's a lot) – Reidgreg (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: There may need to be additional citations for the hook fact(s), depending on which hooks we go with. We can eliminate the hooks you feel are problematic and concentrate on what's left. What do you think? What should I be working on? – 23:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The interview lists are also verifiable to the work itself, with on-screen text when they first appear and also in the credits. I have some RSS which give partial lists (usually the more famous names) if you'd like me to add those.
There was a line in Financing of Being Canadian which had in-text attribution to the Indiegogo fundraising website. I literally couldn't cite this because the editor wouldn't save it – Indiegogo is blacklisted – so I removed it. It's too bad, because this provided contextual information for the delay of the film's release.
In the Inverviews section of WJWF is an uncited line: among the last filmed interviews or appearances by Shelley Berman, Jack Carter, and David Brenner. I believe that these are their last filmed interviews before their deaths (Berman died in 2017, Carter in 2015 and Brenner in 2014). I wasn't able to find anything else, but didn't have a source to specifically state that and so I put among. Let me know and I'll remove it if you feel it isn't good enough.
@TonyTheTiger: I've cited the interviewees where I had secondary sources, cited quotations, and removed the 'last filmed appearances' line from the lead of WJWF (but kept it in the body for now). BTW, I found this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film § Documentaries: Documentary films require a modified approach for their articles. Instead of a plot summary, a documentary article should have a synopsis that serves as an overview of the documentary. The synopsis should describe the on-screen events of the film without interpretation, following the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary (see WP:FILMPLOT). – Reidgreg (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't just concerned about the last filmed appearances in the WP:LEAD. I don't know how relevant the "among the last filmed interviews or appearances" content is for people who went on to live for a couple of years after this was filmed and aired.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it's important on a couple points: It's the last known interview with a couple, and likely several, of these legendary comedians. In some cases, their last filmed performances (ie: telling a joke). That they have died also underlines how this older generation of Jews is disappearing. I feel like this gives the film a place in the history of comedy, as well as discussing it. Not every in-depth source mentions this, but a couple do, and I feel it's worth including even if it might not be of interest to every reader. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If what you are saying is relevant to a particular individual the phrase "among the last filmed interviews or appearances by Shelley Berman, Jack Carter, and David Brenner" should have some sort of WP:RS should it not?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coming here per a note left on WT:DYK. From what I recall before, plot summaries/synopses do not seem to be excluded from the "all hook facts must have a footnote" requirement. One possible way to get around this, especially if an independent source can't be found, could be to simply cite the documentary itself, perhaps with a timestamp. I think there's a citation template for AV media so that could work. Synopses/plot descriptions are excluded from the "all paragraphs must have at least one footnote" requirement provided that the synopses are neutral and do not have any interpretation, but this does not apply if hook facts themselves are based on the synopses. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Narutolovehinata5 suggested using timestamp. I am not sure that the method of adding a {{RP}} format timestamp is what is kosher here. I have never seen this and am not sure the reader will understand. I think the timestamp needs to somehow get inside the WP:IC rather than fly next to it. Does someone know what template we are looking for?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the hook fact is dependent on the synopsis. The question, I believe, was about uncited paragraphs in the synopsis. That's done, I think, and I don't believe citation formatting is a reason to hold up the nomination.
If {{rp}} is acceptable/understandable for book pages, I don't know why it would be unacceptable/confusing for time in a video. I'm sure I've seen formatting like this used somewhere, though I may not have executed it the proper way (it's not the easiest thing to search for). I'd rather not clutter the references with a separate cite AV media template for each of the 8 uses (especially when most of them aren't necessary per MOS:FILM). – Reidgreg (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Reidgreg, the reason that I feel that {{rp}} is a suboptimal solution is that when one looks at the inline citation, one would miss the timestamp. The less expert reader might get confused with a separate timestamp not embedded in the WP:IC. User:Narutolovehinata5 responded above with the clarification that Template:Cite AV media was his intended suggestion. That is a specialized template for this exact use. Let's use it so that the formatting comes out right.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both pages were new enough and long enough/large enough expansion at time of expansion. QPQ was supplied at time of nomination. My preference for hooks is ALT1, 2a, or 2b, which all check out.
Being Canadian:
Canadians' inferiority complex — Paragraph starting with this lacks an inline citation.
For the Canadians' inferiority complex paragraph, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film § Documentaries, the synopsis section of documentary films follows the same guidelines as plot summaries (WP:FILMPLOT) and thus do not require references. I tried to include citations to RSS for both articles where available, but for the last half of that paragraph I didn't find anything. I believe it's a pretty straight-forward summary of that scene of the film, although perhaps "Canadians' inferiority complex" should be "Canadians' perceived inferiority complex" or "Canadian interviewees' inferiority complexes"?
Cohen had hoped to release I had a primary source for the last bit of that paragraph but the website was blacklisted. I've removed the unsourced part.
The [clarification needed] tags were added by a copyeditor. I'd discussed it on the copyeditor's talk page, and though I'm not sure they're 100% satisfied with my changes I've gone ahead and removed the tags.
I agree with the synopsis/plot summary reasoning myself and see the other two issues have been resolved. This is ready to go. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- n
TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
The Synopsis of Being Canadian passes. However, the WJWF sysnopsis does not pass this tests. Both MOS:PLOT and WP:PLOTSUM are guides/guidelines for works of fiction. I need someone to weigh in here on what is acceptable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Tony hasn't been very active lately and despite pings has not returned to the nomination. It may be worth asking for another reviewer in his absence. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the synopsis/plot summary reasoning myself and see the other two issues have been resolved. This is ready to go. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)