Talk:South of the Border (2009 film)

Controversy Section

I added a budding controversy section with the following initial content: 'Conservatives have panned the film, with Investor's Business Daily noting that "Hugo's a movie star now, with Stone creating a propaganda film in his honor, just as Leni Riefenstahl did for Adolf Hitler." Specifically, the editorial criticizes the film for, say, not paying "attention to those Middle Eastern and Colombian terrorists with Venezuelan passports" and berates Venice's film crowds for ignoring Chavez's "forging deadly links with regimes as brutal as his own — or worse." The IBD concludes with a condemnation, referring to Tom Wolfe's "radical chic", of "the self-destructive propensity of the privileged elites to sidle up to predators trying to kill them".' (Chavez's Deadly Star Turn In Venice by Investor's Business Daily) Asteriks (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This article requires a Reception section, not a "budding controversy" section, citing only partisan sources that cannot distinguish between a dictator and a democratically elected leader (IBD lacks a fact-checking department). Please remember to use quality press, preferably those with a track record of reviewing films (e.g. New York Times, Variety, etc). Dynablaster (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

where did you get the idea that IBD does not have a fact-checking department? Millmoss (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

From the very first paragraph of the IBD story, which reads: "It was the thuggish Venezuelan dictator's moment of glory..." (a reference to Hugo Chavez). It seems pretty irrefutable they do not have a fact-checking department. [1] So please use only quality press, as per Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. Dynablaster (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that you are quoting from an Editorial piece, and not a news item, right? Chavez has been described as a dictator by many sources - see the Miami Herald news story - http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/florida/story/1225967.html, and he's certainly been called a dictator in countless editorials. Does wikipedia consider IBD to be a "non-quality source"? Millmoss (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

But Hugo Chavez is not a dictator, nor is he considered one by the British or United States Government. The CIA World Factbook expresses concern that some democratic institutions have been weakened during his tenure (it says nothing about positive initiatives) but importantly it recognises Venezuela as a Democratic Republic. Therefore any source that says, in reality, Venezuela is a dictatorship or, say, France is a dictatorship or that Italy is a dictatorship, cannot be considered a high quality source that Wikpeida commends. Guidelines exist for a reason and we are requested to craft a well balanced Reception section using sources with a proven trackrecord. A whole bunch of professionally written reviews should be along soon. Not all of them will have nice things to say, I'm sure. Dynablaster (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion that a source that runs an editorial that calls someone a dictator, when that definition is disputed by other sources (but supported by others), is ipso facto not a high quality source. What are the guidelines that say this? Millmoss (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RELIABLE unambiguously states: "This page in a nutshell: Information in Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on third-party sources." And I recommend you examine the film template to see how an article like this one should be structured. Dynablaster (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

IBD is a reliable , published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That you disagree with an opinion it presented in an editorial does not change those facts. SO, unless you can show that Wikipedia considers IBD to be non-reliable, based on something other than your personal opinion, the material should go in the article. Millmoss (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

IBD is a low-quality, partisan source. Furthermore, this piece has absolutely nothing to say about the film itself -- it is a short diatribe about "Dictator" Hugo Chavez, Middle Eastern/Colombian terrorists, gasoline exports and the Iranian nuclear programme. Dynablaster (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Other than yourself, who is saying that IBD is a "low quality source"? While I respect your personal opinion, it is not really the yardstick by which sources are measured. I think I've asked this several times already, and have not received an answer - what does Wikipedia policy say about IBD? As to your claim that "this piece has absolutely nothing to say about the film itself" - that is demonstrably false. The IBD article says this is "a propaganda film", and compares it to films that as Leni Riefenstahl produced for Adolf Hitler. You may not agree with this, but that is not the point - the point is that this is a review, in a well known mainstream newspaper, which critiques the film itself - and as such, that critique (not the claims about Chavez or Columbian terrorists) belongs in the article. Millmoss (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please look again. This is not a film review; it's an op-ed (IBDEDITORIALS.COM). The writer has not a single word to say about the content or structure of the film, since he or she admits only to watching a short trailer (paragraph four). The piece merely notes that Hugo Chavez is the subject of a film before launching into a tirade of name-calling. Oliver Stone is compared to no less a figure than Adolf Hitler's personal friend and filmmaker, Leni Riefenstahl ("Yes," I do consider this hysterical and vulgar, and "Yes," my personal opinion is beside the point). But how can you not see that this is precisely the kind of low-quality source for an article of this kind? Wikipedia is a collaboration. We should wait for Slate, Variety or Washington Post to review the actual film. Dynablaster (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not in the "film review" section, true, but it does review the film. You are repeating an obviously incorrect claim - whether or not this is an "official" film review, it does have things to day about the content and structure of the film - it calls it a propaganda film, comparable to films that Leni Riefenstahl produced for Adolf Hitler, and as you concede, criticizes the film's director on those grounds. That is a valid criticism of the film, which is published in a mainstream newspaper. I don't see how it could be excluded from the article on the grounds that "IBD is a low quality source" - an assertion you keep making, but make no attempt to substantiate. Millmoss (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You are in error. How can the author of this piece possibly review a film he or she admits to not having watched, and whose opinion is "Based on the film's trailer and Stone's own statements"? Simply not serious. I also direct you to my previous reply of 21:24, 10 September 2009. Now kindly acknowledge your error. Dynablaster (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your previous reply of 21:24, 10 September 2009 simply quoted WP:RELIABLE, but as I have replied to you earlier, you have not shown that IBD is a publication that is not a reliable, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You assert that to be the case, based on your disagreement with an opinion expressed in an editorial. Millmoss (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no disagreement. Investor's Business Daily is published in the United States, and both the premier Intelligence agency of said country, and its government, do not categorize Hugo Chavez as a Dictator. This is not mere opinion: it is objective fact. Nobody in their right mind would consider Socialist Worker to be a reliable source if that newspaper kept asserting President Obama to be a Dictator. It would be considered a low-quality source by editors for precisely the same reason. Nor can it credibly be cited in a Critical reception section when they have not watched the film. "Criticism", according to WordWeb, is "Disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings; a serious examination and judgment of something. Dynablaster (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

At one point the person who started this discussion asked who else thinks the IDB is an unrealible source (especially when it doesn't deal with the film!}, well another person is me. I also agree with the well argued responses of the person who opposed the formation of a controvesy section. ValenShephard 21:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Ah, the user who proposed this has been blocked indefinately for sockpuppeteering. So this shouldn't be an issue. ValenShephard 21:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Film Review

Considering all the controversy is this discussion and all the media reaction, including the so called 'film reviews'...

Question: Who has actually seen the film ?

Where will it be shown, where has it already been run?

thanks for reading, -- Hoffmansk 14:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmansk (talk • contribs)

Can anyone check whether the UK Times really gave this movie 4 stars as claimed in the article? There were many discrepancies between what the reviews noted in the article actually said and what the article said they said, which I've tried to correct by adding more complete review quotes. For example, the article previously said The Independent (UK) gave the movie 4 stars, but actually it gave it one out of five stars! Also the partial quotes the article used from Time magazine made it seem like a mixed review, actually it was pretty scathing. The Evening Standard and Bloomberg reviews were also distorted. Considering how inaccurately other reviews have been described previously in this article, and the fact that the NY Post gave this a really bad review, it seems doubtful that Murdoch's Times would have given this a good review, but it's behind a paywall and I don't have access to it. Can someone who has access to the UK Times check whether it really gave this movie 4 stars? Thanks Iful (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've tried to check other reviews described in the article but I can't find them on-line. The article refers to an Uncut review but there is no link and I can't find a review for the film on the Uncut site or any link to the person named as the reviewer and a review. The article says the Chicago Sun-Times review is positive but the link doesn't work and I can't find the review on line. Can anyone else find these reviews? Iful (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources for citicism

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/24/the_oliver_stone_show Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Rohter vs. Stone and Weisbrot

Please note that the amount of space currently given to Rohter's criticism is minuscule when compared to the length of the quotes from Stone and Weisbrot. The difference speaks for itself. His arguments are barely summarized, not cited, while those of the staff are presented extensively using their own words. It's also worth pointing out that this is a 2 vs. 1 situation: an exchange between one critic and two filmmakers. What does that say about balance then?

In light of this, arguing that simply including Rohter's reply to the two filmmakers is somehow "unbalanced" sounds rather ironic, at the very least. I believe that's the absolute minimum that should be included, to say nothing of what true neutrality would demand (direct quotes from both and a similar amount of attention to detail). Juancarlos2004 (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think its acceptable for now, as it is, with your cleanups of my wording. I would say its not really two against one because Weisbrot and Stone are arguing mostly together and otherwise in major agreement with eachother. I simply wanted: criticism from Rohter, rebuttal by Stone and Weisbrot (one team), criticism of rebuttal by Rohter and then rebuttal to criticism of rebuttal by Stone/Weisbrot. So each have one say on eachother's arguments, which is basically in place now.Thanks.--ValenShephard 23:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

By the by, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film) is a Featured Article on a similar film with a similar controversy, and should be taken as a model. So we should be looking for a proper Synopsis section, and production and release details, besides the Reception; and perhaps look to develop an Analysis section. Rd232 ^talk 18:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the link to Rohter's original NY Times article which inspired the huge rebuttal in the article. Seems odd that there was such a major rebuttal to an article that didn't even have a link. Guessing someone deleted the link previously? Does this article need to be semi-protected?Iful (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)