This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. African diaspora High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations: United Nations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations. Film: British / Documentary / American 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 This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the Documentary films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. AfroCreatives This article is within the scope of WikiProject AfroCreatives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of AfroCreatives articles 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.AfroCreativesWikipedia:WikiProject AfroCreativesTemplate:WikiProject AfroCreativesAfroCreatives ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list:

This article reads like an advertisement. In fact, a lot of the text seems to be lifted straight from the press kit, see for example this google search and [1] and [2] (that latter page mentions 'summary written by Halaqah Media'). Examples of problematic phrases:

• '500 Years Later engages the authentic retrospective voice, told from the African vantage-point of those whom history has sought to silence by examining the collective atrocities that uprooted Africans from their culture and homeland.'
• '500 Years Later is a timeless compelling journey'
• 'Here, we have a taste of the breadth of this rich cultural legacy that often has to exist within the limited confines of the genres defined and created by others outside of itself.'
• 'A full cast from some of the best minds in the African American (and African) academic world'

It might be best to rewrite this from scratch, though some statistics and verifiable statements could stand. — mark ✎ 10:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

okay mark you should rewrite the problem text---Halaqah 12:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Okay since no one would clean up this article i have done it, i have deleted the "promotional" copy and paste parts of it which come from the press kit.--Halaqah 20:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned the article up further, bias claims and wording used and either dead or worthless pages used for references. 'The producers complained about the racism involved in screening African-centred content and many in the African-British community saw this as part of the racism in the United Kingdom.' has no actual reference so should not be linked, if it is implying the film was not distributed due to racism then it should really be linked and not just flagged as 'link dead' Again this is implied in the quote attributed to California Newsreel however no link to support it. The references regarding "internationally recognised as the hallmark film..." are an Afrocentric blog reviewing the film and a NY Times reader review section with only 3 reviews all from the same user. This is not sufficient to support the claim of international recognition as THE hallmark film on the legacy of slavery. I have tried to make the article more balanced too as all information i can find on the ZIFF 2007 states it won a special award not best documentary. The award appears to have been given by ZIFF rather than UNESCO so it seems odd to repeatedly refer to it as a UNESCO award. In fact despite searching the only pages I can find referring to it as a UNESCO award are pages related to the documentary itself and the ZIFF website so it would appear to be more a ZIFF award than UNESCO. This may seem like nitpicking but if the article is biased in a way to promote the film then it is relevant. Stevowills1 (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain to the new user how things work, WP:TAGGING you have been reverted for your edits--do not continue to impose your edits. If these are issues then discuss them! once reverted! First we have tags for information in dispute, you do not on your own delete large sections of a page because of the reasons above (like dead links). When you use the talk page you create a new section not comment on another section. There is no doubt the film received a UNESCO award because the Zanzibar award (to those who know the film festival) know that UNESCO sponsored and approved awards for slavery. Yes it is nitpicking and actually not constructive because you are taking info out of the article. Now the racism received by the film does have a ref, the problem is the site no longer exist, that does not make the facts of racism experience irrelevant! Very relevant. Information provided by the filmmakers is also good enough since they are primary sources and such sources can be used. And again my biggest issue is how you have just shown up and made no corrections but only wholesale deletions! that is not an improvement. --Inayity (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It took my 10 minutes of searching to fix EVERY reference the new editor had issue with. So much so that the original emails from California Newreel and Danny Cohen are clearly seen! Totally no doubts left. The Blink site is no longer active but found the original article before the org closed down..--Inayity (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the condescending tone but wikipedia is open to anyone to edit, i may have got some of the technical side wrong but please do not try to imply this makes my contributions to the actual article any less worthy. I may not have done to your liking and personal opinion on the subject which is clear to see but the article still reads like an advert. One of the pages you link to support some of the quotes are to a website called africanholocaust which is selling the dvd, is this a reliable source?! Once again the apparent link to support the California Newsreel quote is missing, as is the quote you attribute to Danny Cohen. Please fix the links again or I will delete again, I have said why i have done so, if the article is showing clear bias in favour of the content of the film without sufficient references it cannot be allowed to be part of an entry in an encyclopedia. Again if the film is an apparent hallmark of the slavery genre can't you find a reference for this? i have searched, you have presumably searched too, it does not exist so i am deleting that part. If you can fix those links again that would be great but i am surprised they have failed again after a matter of hours. If that is the case they are unreliable. The final paragraph allows you to understand the politics of the editor who wrote the section (clearly supporting the films content and the opinion that institutions such as channel 4 are racist), i thought this was one of your main concerns regarding a good balanced article? Also the blink page and Ken Livingstone quote are in relation to an incident on one reality tv show, nothing to do with Danny Cohen and is one mans opinion that the channel is racist because of one tv show! Where does it show the emails you say are clearly shown?? I have followed your "FIXED" links but again they are misleading(not supporting the quotes or claims made in the article), or broken. You clearly have an agenda to promote the film and its content but this is not the appropriate place for that. Feel free to promote the film elsewhere. Also it is correct the film makers are primary sources but not correct on a wiki article to use them to back up positive claims regarding the film, surely that is conflict of interest? And deleting dishonest content from an article is actually a constructive activity, quality of content is more important than quantity Inayity Can you really say this is a good balanced article the way it is? Would you not agree to remove disputable content is in the best interests of a wikipedia article? Stevowills1 (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually deleted the final part relating to the allegations that Channel 4 is seen as a racist institution, the blink page was a single story where Ken Livingstone accused Channel 4 of racism due to the tv show Big Brother. The condemnation was for the show, not about Channel 4 being racist or uk tv being racist. On top of this the you claim it showed the uks racism towards Africans when the entire affair revoled around the treatment of Shilpa Shetty, and Indian woman. How does that relate to Uk-African racism specifically? The link seems to me to be deliberately misleading as it does NOT support what it is supposed to be supporting. I can find multiple clams by people of the film being rejected, for example the Ritzy cinema in London apparently rejected at least 10 approaches to show the film, if there is evidence to show this as fact it would be interesting and of course worth inclusion as part of the discussion on racism, but if it is just claims being made without evidence then it is worthless to the article. I have no care about the film whatsoever but spend a lot of time on Wikipedia cleaning up articles which i read and see as biased or misleading. This i have always done just with an IP rather than actually creating an account, basically i am saying i am neutral and want the article to be balanced and correctly referenced. But just leaving it as it is is not an option and less information is better if it is wholly accurate, rather than lots of misleading information. I appreciate you have put work into the article but it does not belong to you and my edits have only been for the good of the article whereas yours are for the good of the film...Stevowills1 (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding your insistence that i tag the article rather than clean it up, i said that i had tried to find links to the claims made but could not, you claimed to fix them all in ten minutes, but did not. My choice is to clean the page up after spending at least an hour trying to find links to backup the claims made, if you can find proper links that work and actually refer to what is said in the article then it is upto you to do so, but like i said i have tried and not been able to, you have tried and not been able to so no i will not just tag errors and leave them. Stevowills1 (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do me TWO favor and respect the Rules of Wikipedia who the article does belong to. The other thing If you are not good at research and reading ref, that is not anyone's burden but your own. Do not come back and say the ref does not support the statement, when in the very ref is 100% proof of an email from Cohen from channel 4. What more can anyone ask for? Cuz I will not hold your hand and read the ref for you. It took no time to find the UNESCO ref, nor the Channel 4 email from Danny showing his remarks.WP:PRIMARYNOTBADare allowed as it is their notable experience. And on Wiki we tag WP:TAGGINGproblem areas and WP:NORUSH. As for a "site selling" the DVDs, it is written by the editors-- IMDB, NEW YORK times all have adverts selling films. Absolutely nothing to do with RS. what the hell does that have to do with their views/experience with making the film? And despite admitting that you are not familiar, still you start your Wikipedia days by creating your own rules and terms for editing and deleting. Stick to What Wikipedia says and not what you think. --Inayity (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favour and follow the two links you claim show the emails, THEY DO NOT. I can only assume you have some archive on your personal hard drive which is showing a page which does not show in other peoples browsers. This is not supporting the article in any way. The site i refer to selling it is africanholocaust not imdb, that is a new link you just added in your last edit! You are purposely misleading and seriously in breach of conflict of interest. I am respecting the rules of wikipedia, you are not by repeatedly trying to promote the content of the film above the integrity of the article itself. The apparent quote by california newsreel is from the trivia section of imdb which is user edited and does not have any evidence to support its own claim, it is not a reliable source for a quote made by a separate entity without proof. You are clearly more "up" on how to edit but in this instance it does not disguise the fact that you are purposely misleading readers of the article in order to further your own personal beliefs on whether the UK is institutionally racist. If you would like to refer this all to somebody more senior please do as i have done nothing to violate the rules of wikipedia. I have in fact cleaned up the article so that it is fact based not opinion based

YOU REPEATEDLY LINK WEBSITES THAT EITHER DO NOT HAVE ANY RELEVANCE TO THE APPARENT QUOTES, ARE DEAD (MORE THAN ONCE) OR ARE NOT VIABLE SOURCES Stevowills1 (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know you edited this article, then I came in and added references. i am not sure What some of your remarks about this editor have to do with the article. STICK TO POLICY. What are you one about? Yes you have violated the rules by Editing warring, by ignore and deleting ref you have not read or understood, and by discussing personal feelings which you claim I have. I think you better get specific as these vague claims of bad ref I do not see. Is the Blink Site not working,? Is the Swahili site a dead link? Where is this dead link?--Inayity (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

imdb trivia page is your support for a quote attributed to California Newsreel? It is a user edited page, anyone can claim to have a quote from anybody else and post it there! It is not a reliable source for a quote especially when it has such ramifications for the integrity of that organisation. It therefore cannot be deemed a reliable or unbiased source The blink link works but as per my previous post on this talk page it has no relevance to the Danny Cohen quote which cannot be supported by any reference/link (we have both tried to find it) I see you have now moved where the reference falls in the article but again it is worthless to the actual content, it is about a different subject (big brother tv show) and blink itself has no source for the Danny Cohen quote. What is the point exactly of linking that page?Stevowills1 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact lets go back to your claim to have referenced two emails which PROVE the quote is real. Please provide the link to the page on this page, here, so there is no doubt it exists. Following each of the reference links in the article as you have it does not show this. IF YOU HAVE IT PLEASE LINK IT otherwise it is just a bogus claim Stevowills1 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you edit Waring on this article? and then so bold as to file a complaint about WP:COI. i honestly do not think you are actually making a coherent argument. Have you read the BLINK article? Do you understand Wikipedia ref policy? You are right because of what your own rationale, where is the wikipedia rationale? What the is this link for are you blind [3] Is that not a channel 4 email? --Inayity (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a proper link yes, but it is also the first time you have provided it. Please see your previous links, they are not the same as this and referencing a page is supposed to be that, not just the same website. As i said if you have the proof then perfect but you had repeatedly linked a different page! and you tell me to learn how to reference? I accept that is an image of an email from channel 4 and as i have previously stated upon seeing the proof it should be included, but please see your earlier edits where you claimed to have linked the email but had not and understand my frustration. The problem i do have with the email is that it has already been manipulated to remove certain details therefore the integrity of it is questionable, as is the place where it is actually found is a site linked with the film. It still seems dubious to me however i will copy the link you just provided in the above comment to the article. Regarding blink yes i have read it completely, it is in relation to racism against a channel 4 show called Big Brother and more specifically Jade Goody and Shilpa Shetty, it did quote the email but without source or proof. In light of the actual email now having a link there is no need for blink to be linked with this other than trying to link an article about Channel 4's alleged racism and the fact Channel 4 did not show this film and implying a link between the two. And again stop trying to make out i am stupid and do not understand wikipedia because i disagree with your view. I have not tried to destroy your reputation in any way as you claim on my talk page i have no care for you at all, i am only interested in wikipedia articles and their integrity and you kept referencing incorrectly saying you were linking an email when you were not, because of that i thought you were deliberately misleading and had conflict of interest, i still think you have far more interest in the article matching your personal views on the film rather than being neutral. For examply the plot summary which somebody has removed for not being a plot summary, you have obviously read the article before and your MASSIVE knowledge of wikipedia never lead you to want to rewrite that in a proper way, but you went out of your way to revert my edits. Why? Stevowills1 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as per Wikipedia:Citing IMDb i am removing the California Newsreel quote as the source is imdb trivia section therefore inappropriate. happy Inayity i used policy... Stevowills1 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

፭፻ doesnt work in the article-

Reference 1 is a dead link. My computer said love (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently watched this, and the claims were mostly verifiable or reasonable. Once claim was that 'the first person convicted under the British Incitement to Racial Hatred laws was an African-Carbbean man'. I can't find evidence for this claim, but I can find it quoted elsewhere. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoes criteria is this? Please give me the wikipedia policy link to "Bias" reference and what the bias is about? Also please show me where IMDB trivia is not a source for this content. Also please get specific about "claims not supported" What claim is that? Did Cohen not reject the film? Two sources say so, ONE of them shows his email. It is not a subjective statement. It is a direct quote. And where are the "dead links"--Inayity (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Inayity! I have removed the subject section of the entry on the basis of WP:QUESTIONABLE, which states that:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." (emphasis mine)

Looking through the http://www.blink.org.uk/ and http://www.africanholocaust.net/ websites, I cannot find any editorial oversight, at all, noted. They are unabashed opinion websites. These are not strong enough sources to make the claims against a LP. From WP:BLPREMOVE:

"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space."

Generally, a good rule of thumb I go by, is if it were notable enough for the Wikipedia Entry, it would be written in a Reliable Source. OR, another tactic would be to re-write the quote and attribute it appropriately, eg WP:Biased; but given WP:BLPREMOVE above, that may be reverted as well. It's a fine line to walk when we're writing about living people. Cheers!Bienmanchot (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot edited as of December 10, 2015. Ewells64 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section does not include any plot - it looks like marketing material. How is it a plot section, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I agree, but you do not delete content wholesale, What you do is try to fix it. All the problem was it was a direct copy and paste from the Blurb. --Inayity (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. We remove copyvios immediately. Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a copyvio? Is a quote a copy vio?--Inayity (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking text from another source and putting it here is a copyvio. Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not get into this, because it is subjective, at least the problem has been mutually fixed. We could have just added "Crime,drugs..."--Inayity (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, as per Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Copyright problems that would not have sufficed would it? Now you can't be a stickler for policy when it suits your view and then dismiss it when it does notStevowills1 (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not go into this but I think QUOTING is allowed. Per international copyright law.--Inayity (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are going into this though, and it was not a quote it was copy and paste lol, even if it were a "quote" as per Wikipedia:Quotations it should have been properly attributed and referenced.Stevowills1 (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I seem to be going into this, that is why I changed the plot from the blurb found on the website, and said We can just put Quotes around "crime drugs, HIV.."

you "changed" it only once somebody else had input, you have been all over the article prior to this and never felt the need to change it. Why? You only suggested quotations after somebody else changed it, did you not care for the quality of the article or wiki policy prior to that? Obviously i am being funny with you but after all of your condescending comments toward me it is fun for me to poke fun at you. Whats funnier is you will more than likely comment again as you need to have the last word lol either way this is my last post on the matter of the "plot" section unless it is changed again, have fun...Stevowills1 (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article accuses an identified living person - Danny Cohen, with saying "It's an interesting idea but I'm afraid, with limited slots available, it's not one I feel strongly enough about to take forward." Please provide a source for this possibly defamatory statement.

This article states that "California Newsreel" said "While we applaud your effort to present African and African American history in a new and more favorable light, we think that your innovative techniques and broad scope are too radical for our largely academic market." Please provide a source for this statement. Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I am finding strange is the new editor deleted the source. The PRIMARY source has them on email. Let me say this again. The source is from the filmmakers who include the actual channel 4 email and the email from California newsreel. IMAGE of email from Cohen. So This is a primary source from the producers on their experience making the film. The deleted ref to BLINK also makes a complaint against Cohen.--Inayity (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source." Please provide a secondary source that discusses the email. Hipocrite (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Blink article is an independent 2nd source. Let me grab it.BLINK on Cohen--Inayity (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article states that "California Newsreel" said "While we applaud your effort to present African and African American history in a new and more favorable light, we think that your innovative techniques and broad scope are too radical for our largely academic market." Please provide a source for this statement. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again it is the email image from a Primary Source article written by the filmmakers, there is no 2ndary source to back it up as in the above (at this time at least). And Note that California newsreel is not a living person but an organization so BLP does not apply. --Inayity (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Provide said source, please. Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Source by filmmakers [4] Source by IMDB IMDB--Inayity (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source. Review Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb. I do not believe a private email sent to the filmmakers is an appropriate source for this article. Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the issues with IMDB WP:CITINGIMDB but I think if the filmmakers are discussing their experience/challenges then it is not a problem.--Inayity (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the email is being used for. It's being used as an under-the-table review. Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My main thing was Cohen so i am easy. --Inayity (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought more about it what purpose does a rejection email from Channel 4 serve in the article? Like Hipocrite has stated it is more a review than anything else. Do other articles regularly quote and reference emails from television channels about whether they will show their film or not? I am searching through wiki policy now to try to get a better understanding of why it has a place or why not, unless somebody else knows one way or the other? I am not sure if it should be left in or deleted until there is a concrete reason referring to wiki policy either wayStevowills1 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLINK is a human rights monitor on race relations, this film is about race and racism, seems that issues around racism in the UK and USA then become central to the history of the film. I also edit a few film and book article and it is pretty common to deal with reception of the work. And if Blink Lester Hollyway thinks this is part of a racial issue then that is an RS.--Inayity (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the logic of linking an article on uk race relations to a positive quote made by the same producer who is apparently part of the racist organization. If the quote is there to show that Danny Cohen was in favour of the film then why is it supported by an article which is insinuating Channel 4(and Danny Cohen) is racist. Either something along the lines of "Some thought that it's rejection by mainstream UK tv channel 4 may have been attributable to racism within the organization" (along with a link to blink) or the Danny Cohen quote without the blink link and a further section for the race relations thoughts. Wouldn't that be better and more balanced? Rather than just implying that was the reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevowills1 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a white wash to me, I mean Is or isn't racism (institutional racism) a legitimate complaint. This film is all about Marginalized communities. I worked on a few Race related articles on Wikipedia and this tendency to soften what is, is a problem. Racism in media is real.--Inayity (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a legitimate complaint, that is why i suggested a separate section of the article, rather than mixing that discussion with the reception section and implying that Danny Cohen liked the film but due to its content would not be suitable. In short the section at the moment reads almost like this "everyone agreed the film was really good but there was no way we, as racial institutions, would allow our viewers to see such content" which is not what the section should be about, or should at least explicitly make the implication rather than trying to force readers opinion to that end. Would you agree, regardless of my use of policy in this instance that would be the best way for the article to be presented?Stevowills1 (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, folks! I've been bold in this case and removed the language, as it's referenced by two very questionable sources and easily falls under WP:BLPREMOVE. The JPG is highly questionable - emails can be photoshopped, taken out of context, thrown on to imgur and used to support a variety of ridiculous claims; we do not write Wiki entries on the back of this type of unverifiable material.

Steveowills, as an aside, to improve the flow of the Talk page - if you add a ":" in front of your response, it indents the entire paragraph and greatly improves readability. For example, to write this paragraph, I've indented with "::" - the next editor to respond should indent with ":::" and so on. Thanks! Bienmanchot (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know then there is a limit to how much can be proven. Now I seriously doubt Mk Asante and Alik Shahadah need to single out one person at Channel 4 with a photoshop job-- Get serious. I think beyond their primary source they explained channel 4 as part of their experience making a film. I am being Bold and saying TALK before undoing what came through agreement. --Inayity (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say that a lot when people disagree with you - typically, you say it after reverting what they did. I also support removing the Channel 4 director statements, as they are generally irrelevant to this movie. Hipocrite (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry about me so much, I suggest you worry about a serious rationale behind the removal of content which has a notable secondary source and a good primary source. Try and focus on that! They clearly are not irrelevant when 3 notable people have made them relevant. Do I need to bring examples from other films?--Inayity (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other films which quote emails verifiable only as images would be great, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be repeating myself about references deleted. Did the director and the producer not write an article called Seen But Never heard about their experiences making the film? So seems like damage control as why smudging Channel 4 reputation would be a problem. Now Lester Hollyway (sp) found the fact important enough to include it in his article on Racism in UK media, so sure 3:1 But Are we voting now? Is that how Wikipedia works?--Inayity (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opps My bad Ligali a UK race monitor also covered the story Ligali Talks about Channel 4 rejection But I guess we can always find ways to explain away everything. Like The filmmakers Faked the email by using Photoshop Cs4. LOL--Inayity (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inayity, none of the three sources you've provided are verifiable, none have editorial oversight, therefore this is not enough to publish information in this entry that may or may not tarnish the reputation of a LP. WP's rules on BLP are very straightforward - if you're going to say something, make sure it's backed up and can be proven without a doubt, otherwise hold back on editing the entry until such evidence is available. Bienmanchot (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you have verified they do not have editorial oversight. Both BLINK and Ligali are recognized race-monitors for the UK African community. What would be such an example? Do you mean it would have to be CNN or BBC to be valid? Is that the criteria you are working with?--Inayity (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Inaayiti! For your convenience, I've tracked down the pertinent policy language:

"Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability states that "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."" WP:Verifiability

"Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication."WP:THIRDPARTY

"Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding first-party sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials."WP:THIRDPARTY

"A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia."WP:THIRDPARTY

As I mentioned two sections above, which you may have missed:

"Looking through the http://www.blink.org.uk/ and http://www.africanholocaust.net/ websites, I cannot find any editorial oversight, at all, noted. They are unabashed opinion websites. These are not strong enough sources to make the claims against a LP. From WP:BLPREMOVE "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately..." (emphasis mine) Bienmanchot (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity How come then sites like ADL and Southern Poverty Law can be used as RS to bash LP.? It is fascinating how something so subjective can be used selectively on Wikipedia. Seems like the threshold is made one way to censor and then opens up when it comes to other parties. Here is an example Dr Ben, and a good example Malik Zulu Shabazz.--Inayity (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only because Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, and the ridiculous use of incredibly biased and unverifiable sources in the articles you've listed haven't been challenged - yet. Bienmanchot (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have misspoke - after answering, I did a little snooping around the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and found the following submission, which I hope you find helpful. In short, ADL and Southern Poverty Law "are generally reliable for non-controversial information in their areas of expertise" (in the Malik article you posted, this ranges from his date of birth to the year he stepped down from the New Black Panther Party). As it pertains to this entry, I'd argue that the direct quote that we're trying to source from advocacy groups (holocaust and BLINK) cannot be considered "non-controversial information". Bienmanchot (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And for fun, here is even more reading on the topic, this time on a [Project Talk page]. I don't believe the language discussed there moved forward to the Project page (though bits and pieces can be found throughout WP Project pages), but you can clearly see the principle at work. Bienmanchot (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am opening this subsection and section with plans to expand this article. Those interested are welcome. And those with opinions about the expansion, are welcome to voice them here too. Thanks Cheers, Historiador (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A group of Virginia Tech students are working on this article under my supervision. They are engaged in expanding and improving it. The group's involvement (not individual editors) in the article will not take more than two weeks. Though we are working on this article as a group, we are aware that the article belongs to the community and that our contributions are guided by Wikipedia's rules and practices. If you see areas where we can improve, please, let us know. And, do please, share your thoughts and contributions. Our involvement, as a group, should not preclude your inputs. Thanks and cheers, Historiador (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Explaining a Recent Reversal: I reverted a change here because it was unsourced and contradicted the interviewees in the film. These were the two sentences I expunged:

Some of those interviewed believed that it may be necessary for African-Americans to go back to a time of segregation in order for African children to receive an education based on African history in order to create a sense of racial pride within the youth. Some even go as far to say that they need to go back to Africa in order to find their roots in their culture.

• Without regard to its prose, to me, this change/input to the article misinterprets the film and interviewees. The context for the first sentence seems the filmmakers' concern with the current youth distance from the problems of the past, and the dangers of them not having a framework of reference to interpret present-day problems. This, actually, is at the root of the film's purpose: history and education. So, they were not longing for the past, which is what the paragraph cited above is saying. Instead, they were wanting the youth to appreciate history.
• The opening words in the second sentence-- "Some even go as far to say"-- implies that the appeal to maintain connections with Africa is somehow wrong, which is passing judgement and a violation of the NPOV principles in Wikipedia. After all, a diaspora is measured by the relationship to the place of diasporic origin (i.e., Jewish and Israel). So, to visit Africa, witness the relics of the past, and try to understand the historical sources of African American culture is what diaspora is all about.
• In regards to sourcing controversial claims like the one cited above, these are questions to consider: 1) who in the film spoke in this manner? In other words, identify the speakers. 2) What were their words? Quote them so your reader would interpret them on their own. 3) Where in the film do they appear? Locate the source; say exactly where the reader could find your reference. Historiador (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]