Talk:Devil's Playground (2002 film)

Old discussions

The title of this movie is "Devil's Playground" not "The Devil's Playground". How do we correct this?

Page needs to be renamed to "Devil's Playground" instead of "The Devil's Playground" as noted above. I added some info to the page but don't have a login. Please rename this page.

Thanks to Tydaj for the rename! I added some more links and removed my cleanup request.

Fair use rationale for Image:Devils playground.jpg

Image:Devils playground.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Rite?

Why does this article list the rite as alleged? The documentary demonstrates it as well as Amish in the City. Moreover, there should be plenty of individuals that left the church that can speak of their experiences. Perhaps all Amish don't participate in the practice, but I didn't realized that it is not alleged to not occur at all. I would change this myself but I noticed the history page claims that this has been previously discussed on this talk page, although I don't see a discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ost316 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is at Rumspringa. There's no question that some Amish youth depart from community norms. The question comes when certain pop-culture sources (this documentary, Amish in the City) put forward the idea that this rebellion is more or less institutionalized, expected, a rite of passage. So "alleged" doesn't refer to rebellious behavior, but to its identification as a rite of passage. DavidOaks (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Could the level of institutionalization be dependent on the community or congregation? Could parents who were more rebellious during their rumspringa, who are now more religiously devoted, 'institutionalize' the 'rite of passage' in their family and community? I'm curious, and I feel that the word alleged is poorly placed, and casts doubt on the integrity of the documentary. Perhaps a criticism section might be more appropriate. Arcadious (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that integrity is at issue, but accuracy certainly is; "alleged" is used because the claims made in the film are not sustained in serious academic scholarship. DavidOaks (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest

Devil's Playground is a 2002 documentary film directed by Lucy Walker which examines "Rumspringa" as experienced in some Amish communities.

Just the barest facts. Production company in the infobox. Problems with the film itself go in the main article, citing sources, not in the intro.

--Lexein (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, that usage -- it seems to me -- cedes factuality and interpretive accuracy at least for the areas studied, when what's in dispute is whether any such institution exists anywhere, or whether the filmmakers were talking to highly disaffected young people. "Alleged" is standard usage for claims whose truth (or falsity) has not been established. DavidOaks (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest "Devil's Playground is a 2002 documentary film directed by Lucy Walker which examines the notion of "Rumspringa" as expressed by a selection of young Amish." "Alleged" is dissonant with the neutral tone of a lead paragraph in this case, because the notion of "alleged" is nowhere in the film, so we, as editors, cannot introduce it. "Disputed" or "controversial" are more in keeping with WP policy when representing conflict in overall NPOV. --Lexein (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I see it quite the opposite. To use "disputed" or controversial," we need to be able to cite someone disputing the claim or saying it's controversial. To use "alleged," we do not have to find anything in the film that says the rite is "alleged" nor do we have to find anyone who uses the term with reference to the film or to the claim. It is a neutral and non-prejudicial term which indicates that a claim has been made without taking any position on the truth of that claim. DavidOaks (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are acouple of cites which justify the use of "alleged." [3][4] User:DavidOaks|DavidOaks]] (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest "Devil's Playground is a 2002 documentary film directed by Lucy Walker about Amish Rumspringa as experienced by several Amish teens." (at end of paragraph) "The film's representation of Rumspringa has been challenged."

The current use of "alleged" is inappropriate, because

• It casts into doubt the existence of the very word Rumspringa, when the target is the representation of it by the film.
• No source says "alleged", therefore we cannot.
• The fact that the use of "alleged" was even questioned is some proof of its overdense coding and easy misinterpretation.

The film's representation of Rumspringa is disputed, therefore, we must say so and cite sources. That's how we do it. --Lexein (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

To keep things precise, there is no question that there is a sociological category "rumpspringa" -- it is a Deitsch word designating the period of adolescence when serious courtship begins. Amply sourced. Wittmer's page specifically mentions this film and "Amish in the City" as misrepresenting the phenomenon. Now, I simply do not understand your meaning in the staement ":*No source says "alleged", therefore we cannot." Perhaps you can paraphrase. We are certainly not misrepresenting things if there is a claim and counterclaim and we refuse to take a side. That is an appropriate use of "alleged." If you have a polciy on the use of the word I don't know about, please bring it forward. But it is certainly appropriate to report non-agreement on truth claims using this perfectly neurtral, even legalistic term. DavidOaks (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Help request at WP:EAR

I have removed the word 'alleged' from the lead. Whatever the Devil's Playground (film) documentary tries to either prove or disprove, the Wikpedia article Rumspringa appears to be well documented. The use of alleged in the lead in this context is therefore probably inappropriate. It may be questionable whether Rumspringa is a Right of passage ceremony, or a period of adolescence, but it is probably not up to us to put our interpretation on it in the Wikipedia. To do so would be possible infringement of WP:NPOV and WP:OR.--Kudpung (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I was planning to but real life got in the way. Rumspringa isn't a figment of someone's imagination. It may not be 'official' or universal, but it's real. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat my call for precision -- the discussion here suffers from a lack of it. The claims here are really confusing -- to me at any rate. One seems to be that "alleged" refers to the word "rumspringa," -- or to the semantic field which that signifier designates? Another seems to be that it is exists, but is falsely assigned to the anthropological category of "rite of passage". We are definitely NOT putting up "our" interpretation when we cite an academic expert on the subject who notes two specific and connected facts IN the material cited: 1) there is widespread belief in x and 2) that belief is incorrect. Now, that is precisely the situation, in my understanding, which calls for the word "alleged." Please look this word up -- it does not mean "something which has been claimed but which is not true" For a second time, please bring forward any wikipolicy of which you are aware that governs the use of this word. And for the second time, please have a look at articles on subjects of contested veracity to see that the contest itself usually appears in the lead. Please do not make reference to possible infringements of WP:NPOV or WP:OR -- show what original research or POV violation occurs. DavidOaks (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll just repeat for the sake of precision, and in language that the non-academics of semantics among our readers can understand, that this article is about a film - it's not a platform for applying an interpretation of it. We deal with facts, and the maxim is: If in doubt, leave it out. At WP:EAR we read editors' problems, we weigh up the pros and cons from a neutral standpoint. At WP:EAR we don't analyse your articles and rewrite them for you. If need be, we see if some kind of consensus has been established. It has, and the word alleged is not wanted in the intro.--Kudpung (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that big a deal on the particular point, and I actually thought we were closing in on agreement, but things went wrong with some really disappointing behavior. Lexein dislikes discussion, complains, makes false statements, admin intervenes on the grounds that discussion is not needed. This consisted of two editors exchanging nine messages in 24 hours, with a third weighing in once, and then an admin deciding that this "extended" discussion is unnecessary, along with dismissive remarks on "academics" (yes, I know they're the bad guys in some views here, but is it just the fact that I'm asking people to look up the usage and meaning of words they're complaining about that earn this aspersion?) This is WP at its worst, but its fortunately pretty rare. DavidOaks (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I did not intervene 'on the grounds that discussion is not needed' and not that it's relevant, I think I'm the only Admin is this discussion. There's nothing wrong with academics at all. If any academics have commented on the film, I'd probably be keen to use them. But I believe Wittmer is self-published and he is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Counseling at The University of Florida (ie although he's an academic, academics specialise and this is outside his field), and I presume you know about WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I requested editorial (not admin) assistance because I wanted a reality check, as stated. This is Wikipedia at its near best, actually, because there was no revert war, more editors weighed in, I was wrong about WP:OWN, and I put a WP:AGF sticker on my Enter key. --Lexein (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead and accuracy

I'd like to have another try at this; communication broke down on the last attempt. Here's what we currently have: "Devil's Playground is a 2002 documentary film by Stick Figure Productions, directed by Lucy Walker about the Amish rite of passage called Rumspringa." Now, that inevitably implies that 1) there is a rite of passage called "rumspringa" and 2) it is characterized by attitudes and behaviors like those depicted in this film. At the very least, both assertions are in dispute (I think any reasonable review of WP:RS makes it clear that both are in fact false). What is worse, both are widely believed, and the current edit puts Wikipedia in the position of affirming popular misconception -- the very thing that causes educators so frequently to forbid its use. I am returning to this discussion because someone, in my hearing, cited this very article as "proof" that "Amish kids are allowed to do whatever they want for a year when they're sixteen, get it out of their system." I really think this is a bad thing.

Compare: "The Loch Ness Monster is a cryptid that is reputed to inhabit Loch Ness in the Scottish Highlands." Are we ok with "The Loch Ness Monster is an animal inhabiting Loch Ness in the Scottish Highlands"?

Now, numerous times in the previous discussion, I asked for an account of what was wrong with "alleged." That's the focal question I want to take up now -- what's wrong with "alleged"? It is the word regularly used for a fact-claim which is disputed. There are those who allege that the Amish have a rite of passage for adolescence, and there are those who allege that it is called rumspringa, and there are those who allege that it has the characteristics this film attributes to it. None of it is sustained by good academic sources, though it is categorically denied by -- among others -- a native informant with an academic appointment and a doctorate in a related field who is regularly called upon as an expert on this specific topic. We could entertain other word-choices as well, but the current state of the article just affirms folklore as fact. DavidOaks (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

DavidOaks, communication did not "break down". Editorial assistance was requested, and the matter was resolved against your personal opinion. Both assertions are made and or implied by the film's promotional materials and key personnel. Nobody is trying to push a pov that there is a rite of passage - you persist in insisting that by your definition of rite there is no such rite. In fact, the term rite of passage is used as a figure of speech, not as an anthropological or historically rigorous classification. Figures of speech are a common shorthand way of notionally suggesting a broad classification. Falling off a bicycle, one's first kiss, and first communion (for Catholics) are all rites of passage, in difference senses of intentionality vs deliberateness, as well as different life-phase emotional vs life-choice gravity. None of that is important, since the article is about the film, and its representations of itself. Your personal dispute and issues with this article have been discussed at length, and have been resolved peacefully. I get that it galls you. You're certainly permitted to (and you have) devote a paragraph to the "scholarly" (non-in-field-opinion-by-a-self-published-author) disputation of the film/director's assertions about itself, but it does not merit stating in the lead, because per MOS:LEAD, the lead should address primarily the subject of the article itself.

With that as background,

1. You ask, "what's wrong with the word alleged". This has been specifically addressed as vague: who alleges, what is specifically, narrowly alleged, and it's inherent POV bias by introduction of a supposed alleger. You rejected many, many attempts at rephrasing with and without the word "alleged" until it required the intervention of editorial assistance. Now, as a former President once said, "There you go again." You even rejected removal of the words "rite of passage" and their replacement with any alternate phrase. Without being clear at any point, you seem to be trying to force the word Rumspringa out of the lede, and/or forcing it in and declaring that it's controversial, and I'm calling you out on it.
2. I ask, "what's so great about the word alleged?" Who does it help? You have, seriously, acted quite dedicated to the word, and dedicated to introducing debate and controversy, rather than straightforward description of the film, smack in this article's opening paragraph. This directly violates WP:UNDUE.

--Lexein (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Don't care about my personal opinion, care about accuracy of the encyclopedia. Now, this is the first time you've explained that the use of "rite of passage" here is a "figure of speech." Thanks, that gets us moving. I have a problem with using technical terms non-literally as part of a definition. As a point of policy, I think it's a really, really big mistake. I also have a problem with representing a claim which ARE disputed (and that fact is amply documented) without qualification as to their factuality, again, especially in the lead. Have a look again at the NEssie analogue; I think it's apt. Now, about "rite" -- I don't recall making reference to "MY" definition of the term. I don't have one. I'm using the one anthropolgists use. Since it is a technical term in anthropology, I think that's the way to go. The problem is that the "figurative" meaning in this case is IN OPPOSAITION to the technical meaning, with the result that institutionalization is implied. But we are finally actually addressing the issue, and I am truly and non-ironically grateful for it. It's what I've been after all along. I thank you just as sincerely for finally addressing the question of the word "alleged" -- I've been asking that for a long time too. It's easily solved. We can say that the film alleges there is such a rite of passage. Or if we find that the allegation is not in fact made, we remove the phrase rite of passage. Because in that case, the incorrect usage of the term is not even sustained by the proposition that the claim was made in the film. I still think that alleged is the right word, although as I said, we can try "widely-believed" as well. "Disputeed" works. Shall we try that? I continue to work on this because I care about accuracy and about the larger project, as I'm sure you do too. DavidOaks (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I"m "Trying to force the word rumpspringa out of the lead"? Whatever gave you that idea? Not at all. It would be a strange thing to do, since that is the subject of the film. Thanks for the oppportunity to clear that up -- what a huge misapprehension you've been laboring under. I think that could explain an awful lot. DavidOaks (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Misquoting other editors doesn't help: the complete quote is "you seem to be trying to force the word Rumspringa out of the lede, and/or forcing it in and declaring that it's controversial" without attribution. None of those actions is appropriate for the lede: Wikipedia should neither appear to endorse without attribution, nor declare controversial without attribution, nor deprecate without attribution. Any controversy over Rumspringa itself belongs, seriously, in that article, not this one. Controversy about the film may belong in this article. --Lexein (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be a bit more careful about attributing motive, and maybe read a little more carefully? I have been clear from the beginning that there's nothing controversial about the existence of a semantic category called in some places "rumspringa," as there is no question there is a sematic field designated by "Loch Ness Monster." To go into the controversies over the realities of the status-phase in this article would indeed be WP:Coatrack. However, one more time, the article Protocols of the Elders of Zion describes it as "purporting" to detail an account of the Jewish conspiracy to achieve world domination. We do not introduce it as an "account of the Jewish conspiracy" etc. DavidOaks (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)I really don't understand the vitriol -- I'm dedicated to introducing controversy, with italics no less? I'm trying to REACH CONSENSUS (rather than calling in enforcement, as was done on me for much less obstyreporousness) about a way to achieve accuracy here, both to the film and to the subject it treats. It seems to me that you're just not perceiving that there's a problem at all, and that's why I'm still working on it. I'm gonna try another analogy -- would you think the lead sentence to JFK (film) is improved by deleting the bolded word?

JFK is a 1991 American film directed by Oliver Stone. It examines the events leading to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and alleged subsequent cover-up, through the eyes of former New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner).

I don't, because the thesis of the film is a matter of controversy. DavidOaks (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• WP:AGF - do not label discussion vitriol unless angry words are used.
• Please read WP:Beware of the tigers - it applies both to passionate editing, and observer bias.
• Desist in mischaracterising (click and read) WP:Editor assistance as "enforcement". Believe me EA is absolutely not enforcement of anything: it is in fact supposed to be thoughtful further discussion informed by (click and read)WP:Five Pillars, (click and read)WP:Policy, (click and read)WP:Guidelines, (click and read)WP:Essays and occasionally (click and read)WP:ARBCOM decisions about what constitutes a good article and (click and read)(here) good lead paragraph. It is part of the dispute resolution process, as listed in WP:DISPUTE. You may of course persist in your belief about enforcement, but it will tend to be broadly, and pointedly discouraged, and not only by me.
• Your quote of JFK (film) is illuminating, because it uses the word alleged in uncoded, clear (no long chain of modifiers) prose. I would swap the words "subsequent" and "alleged", but still, its object is clear in context; furthermore, the allegation, and the alleger, are portrayed in the film. In Devil's Playground, no controversy or allegations are addressed, stated, implied, promoted or otherwise. That's why neither controversy or allegations belong early in the lede at all. If there is a controversy section, it should be late in the article, and therefore late in the lede - any other placement is (click and read)WP:UNDUE, because the article is first and foremost about the film.
• In the sense that a religion is involved, and that reliable sources are required in referring to that, it's worth assessing the words "rite of passage." Will you address the three prior suggestions above which remove the words "rite of passage" from the lede and article? I've copied them here, numbered.

1. "Devil's Playground is a 2002 documentary film directed by Lucy Walker which examines "Rumspringa" as experienced in some Amish communities."
2. "...which examines the notion of "Rumspringa" as expressed by a selection of young Amish."
3. ... about Amish Rumspringa as experienced by several Amish teens." (at end of paragraph) "The film's representation of Rumspringa has been challenged.", and this new suggestion:
4. ... about the experiences of several Amish teens in the process of deciding whether to remain in or leave their Amish communities and faith."

And finally, about spelling, and this really is gentle humor: "Ladies and gents, there's no 'rump' in Rumspringa, at least there's not supposed to be!" Badum dum tshhhh. We're here all week, folks.

--Lexein (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Any of the first three would be an improvement over the present state, which asserts as fact something which is at least disputed, if not false. These were the subject of earlier and abruptly truncated discussion. While it was never my purpose to remove the word "rumspringa" from the lead, I think the fourth suggestion is the strongest, as it solves the key problem of having a lead which validates the folk-understanding of this status-phase.DavidOaks (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done - I'm happy with #4. This avoids a whole bunch of quotation, attribution, and bringing up of controversy in the lede. The word Rumspringa is mentioned in the film, (see below)but not exhaustively, and only by way of introduction, and it's seen to have various interpretations among the Amish, noncontroversially. So, are we cool? --Lexein (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Voice of Wikipedia

It's important that the "voice" of an article be the voice of the sources, not that of Wikipedia itself, or of any particular editor. If there is a dispute between sources, that it be spelled out either in the text, citing both sources, or in a footnote, citing both sources. Wikipedia is not a WP:Battleground. I've moved the comment about "The scholarship on the subject does not support this view of a normative rumspringa" (unexplained lowercase r) out of the synopsis to very acceptable footnote, where it still needs a supporting citation. This may indeed be worthy of a sentence such as:

Though the film's introductory title card makes mention of rumspringa as a capitalized word as if it were a standalone concept,^[1] or notional rite of passage (figure of speech), and as a period or time, and some interviewed Amish use the word contemporaneously with the notion of a time of "running around" before or while choosing to stay or leave the community and faith,^[2][3] some researchers (one, passionately so) dispute the elevation of the notion to any sort of literal "time of fooling around" in which rules of Amish behavior are suspended.^[4][5][6]

Note, that if we say "some", we should cite at least three. See below. --Lexein (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I erred in the draft proposal above - no need for a controversy section. The phrase "rite of passage" was inserted, unsourced, by the article's originating editor at its creation in 2004; it's not in the film, nor is it implied there, and 3rd party sourcing can't change that. It's not harmless either: this article had an unsourced phrase in its lede which may have contributed to the ongoing public misperception of the film and its subject - that's very annoying. --Lexein (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

We need to mention Rumspringa, and something like this would work except for the 'passionately so' unless we can source that - as it stands it appears to be OR. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (see Usage in the film, below). As for 'passionately so', you're right - I struck the whole thing anyways, as noted above. --Lexein (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Usage in the film

I watched the film, took screengrabs, and transcribed key parts to address significant issues.

1. The phrase "rite of passage" is never used in the film, nor any variant of it.
2. The word rumspringa is used in interviews and in intertitles, where it is lowercase (except at the beginning of a sentence), and italicized as a foreign language word, but it is not used to imply a rite of passage, nor declare any official status upon the word. The film makes no statement that kids are encouraged to go "running around," it just documents a few who do so.

• 0:02:02 "When Amish children turn 16 they begin a period known in Pennsylvania Dutch as rumspringa. They are released from Amish restrictions and can explore the "english" [sic] world."
  0:02:14 "Rumspringa lasts from a few months to several years, until a young person can decide whether or not to join the Amish church."
• 0:12:29 (subtitle) "During rumspringa, boys will often drive cars and dress "english". [sic]
• 0:17:21 "Throughout his rumspringa Faron has been using and dealing 'crank'..."
• 0:49:48 "The Amish allow a rumspringa tradition known as "bed courtship".

One interview subject defines it (italics per WP:MOS#Italics):

• 0:15:31 Man: "Rumspringa, literally translated, means running around. It's a time for the youth to attend their parties and do those kinds of things."
  [0:15:46:] "This rumspringa is a time during which a person needs to make his individual choice as to whether he will follow Jesus Christ or not, and he cannot make that decision until he is accountable, which is generally accepted as being over the age of 16."

and two interview subjects use it plainly:

• 0:22:40 Gerald: "Most kids live at home with their mom and dad during their rumspringa."
• 1:12:30 Faron: "I don't know if I'm still rumspringa or... I don't know what I am."

As used, rumspringa seems only to refer to activity during a period of time, and its lowercase usage is informal; nothing official or rite-like. It's used casually, in the way we run around (lowercase) doing errands during lunch; these aren't Errands (capital E), they're just errands. It's italicized in the film, which matches WP:MOS#Italics (both words as words and foreign language words).

Including rumspringa in the article without editorializing solves all WP:UNDUE emphasis beyond its usage in the film. Here's the next suggested lead paragraph:

... about the experiences of several Amish youths deciding whether to remain in or leave their community and faith while rumspringa ("running around" in Pennsylvania Dutch). The film follows a few Amish teenagers in LaGrange County, Indiana who enter the "english" world and experience partying, drinking, illegal drugs, and pre-marital sex. Some teens in the film profess that they will eventually become baptised as adults in the Amish community; a few do not. If they are baptized, then leave, they will be shunned by family and friends; one girl experiences this.

I checked the following sources. Their definitions align with the text of the film; the first book criticizes its tone and emphasis. The second book was based on research and interviews done for the film plus additional and re- interviews.

• Growing up Amish: The Teenage Years. Richard A. Stevick, 2007. p. 152. This was suggested for further reading by Amish in America: What is Rumspringa?
• Rumspringa: To Be Or Not to Be Amish Tom Shachtman, 2006. p 11. Review (positive) Interview
• Amish Grace: How Forgiveness Transcended Tragedy Donald B. Kraybill, Steven M. Nolt, David L. Weaver-Zercher - 2010. p. 162
• Dug Down Deep: Unearthing What I Believe and Why It Matters Joshua Harris - 2010. p. 2.

Other RS welcome. --Lexein (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The new proposed lead seems good to me, except that the phrase "While rumpspringa" might be better rendered as "during the period known as 'rumspringa'" while the English translation may be treatedas a participial phrase (has equally the form of a gerund) that's not the case for the Deitsch. DavidOaks (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Y That was the only part that looked awkward. Glad you're on board. --Lexein (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM Assessment

Per a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment, I have reviewed this article to determine if it should be upgraded from Start class. As the article only consists of the synopsis and reception, I don't believe this qualifies for C class. I would recommend adding additional details such as production, home media, splitting off the awards from the reception into a separate accolades section, and including any other relevant details that are available about the documentary. Consider taking a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Spotlight articles for ideas for expansion. With further sourcing and expansion, this article can be upgraded to C class. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - that's some advice we can use. --Lexein (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)