Talk:Let the Fire Burn

	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 Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Not a Black Power Movement

The director of this film, Jason Osder, has explicitly stated in an interview with ReasonTV that MOVE is not a "black power" organization. See http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/01/23/jason-osder Minute Mark 1:20-1:35: "They [MOVE] were through their history primarily but not exclusively African-American. But again, always would reject sort of classification based on race. They [MOVE] were not a black power group." (Emphasis added).
Accordingly I am removing the uncited reference declaring MOVE a black power group in the lede. Jaydubya93 (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Peace Movement

I removed the reference in the lede declaring MOVE a peace movement as patently and obviously incorrect given their repeated violent engagements with the police department. It would be more accurate to state that MOVE practiced a policy of armed self defense. Please note that my statement here is meant to be completely neutral vis a vis the continuing controversy regarding the violence between MOVE and the police. I am merely maintaining that MOVE acquired firearms and used them. Such actions, whether or not they are justified, are clearly not non-violent.
If a citation is forth coming, the generic peace could be replaced with a more specific reference to MOVE thoughts on US foreign policy, such as non-interventionism in Vietnam, etc. I would do so now however I am not aware of a reputable source to back up such a claim. Jaydubya93 (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 March 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Fire Burn (film) → Let the Fire Burn – Let the Fire Burn (album) is not an article, it's a redirect to a simple list only stating the name of the album. That makes the film article the primary topic per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Relisted. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Mika1h (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Comment - there are 2 albums and 1 songs mentioned in en.WP articles. If the 2013 documentary passes long term WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and is proven to not be WP:RECENT, then the documentary should move to primary, and the dab move out of the way Let the Fire Burn → Let the Fire Burn (disambiguation). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film article should be primary topic by default since the other terms don't have articles. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC two ways of determining a primary topic is with Special:WhatLinksHere and article traffic statistics. Both of which can't be used since other terms don't have articles. The remaining way is reliable sources and the film has 15 reviews listed at Metacritic: [1]. With a quick Google search ("artist" "let the fire burn" review) I didn't find any reliable sources for the rest of the terms. --Mika1h (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. Whether a term has its own article or not (versus being discussed within some other article) does not affect whether it may be the primary topic for a term. Please see WP:DAB. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't say that a topic has to be in a separate article to be primary – in fact, it doesn't comment at all about whether topics have separate articles. (An example previously used is Hurricane, a topic which does not have a separate article.) But in this case, the other candidate articles say practically nothing about the topic and don't seem to indicate a very high degree of notability, so I don't feel especially protective of them. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - When the others uses don't even have article sections much less articles of their own, then the one use that has an article is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Per WP:UNDAB. --B2C 00:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia editors decide to make articles on has no bearing on whether a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists or not. And again WP:UNDAB is an essay, which has been heavily redacted recently by only one editor. However Google News does have a lot of hits for the film, on that basis like BarrelProof not opposing the move. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – by default per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I think it actually does matter what articles exist on WP, because we're trying to expedite connecting readers with the desired info, and that's contingent upon what is available. While exceptions such as "hurricane" may exist, I think that such are the exceptions that prove the rule. If someone wants to show that the other articles are so much more viewed that even their fractional viewership based on "Let the Fire Burn" supersedes that of the movie, that argument could carry water. But absent that I think the application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC fits. ENeville (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Red Slash 01:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Let the Fire Burn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]