Talk:The Birth of a Nation

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Plungers

What are the wiggly things the Klansmen wore on their heads that look like bathroom plungers? Do all the tall Klansman hoods have one of those at the middle to keep them standing up in a point? Wnt (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

that is one of the (many) original KKK outfits, the pointy white hood didnt become standard for many years after thisfilm was released —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.128.225 (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I Think This Article Needs A Damn Good Review...

There are a few 'hilarious' additions to the Uncredited section of the Cast.

Why aren't these little things being picked up by Wikipedia's bots???

Richytps (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of keywords that bots look for, but it's hard to catch these instances. I've reverted the vandalism. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well done, sir. These vandals think they are so funny. Childish idiots. I should have reverted it myself - I will next time. Richytps (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Why "previous better"?

I don't get what makes the "previous better"... before my edit it first talked about the protests against the film, and then goes slightly off topic for no reason, only to right after jump back to a film influenced by the protests. So I'm not convinced yet on how the previous revision is better. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Before your edit, the paragraph described the protests and the bans in several cities, and then finished by describing Griffith's reaction (a year after The Birth of a Nation he made Intolerance).

After your edit, the paragraph described the protests, jumped ahead a year to discuss Griffith's reaction, then jumped back in time to mention the bans that prevented The Birth of a Nation from opening in several cities. This seems needlessly disjointed. I also think that "it was banned in several cities" has a bit more life than "in addition, some cities had it banned". Ewulp (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't know what I'm saying, but I deduce many beliefs I know from assumptions, (I try to be very open to questioning/replacing them it new information suggests otherwise), because there's not a thing wrong with doing so, as otherwise people would know very little. On the article about Intolerance, it clearly describes how it was influenced by the criticism of this film, but makes not mention of its banning. I just wonder, from where did you learn that Intolerance was influenced by the bans? Did you see this / hear this, or did you just deduce this from assumptions? Because such a content on the article on Intolerance is new information, would you please, perhaps, reassess my edit? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Reassessment done. The bans resulted from criticism. Why else would a film be banned, unless somebody thought that the film should not be shown? If further clarification is necessary, sources beyond wikipedia itself may be consulted; this is representative.

The relevant text of our article ("The outcry of racism was so great that Griffith was inspired to produce Intolerance the following year") carries no suggestion that the bans influenced Griffith more than the criticism, or that the bans influenced Griffith less than the criticism. Ewulp (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

My version didn't say anything about what caused the bans, and just talked of it after the likely reason was given, because most decisions of this magnitude do not originate from a single reason (I agree the protests were the main factor). But if you want people who agree with you to deduce the protests caused it, you don't really need to revert anything because people who agree with you would deduce the same thing anyhow. I mean, think about it. If 90 people tell me to do X, and another 10 people also tell me to do X, and in the end I do X because there's more than 50 people who want me to do so, Wikipedia should just list the people who wanted me to do X instead of saying "because of those 90 people who wanted 173.180.202.22 to do X, he did so". 173.180.202.22 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated in my original edit summary, way back on May 13, the existing edit seems better to me—superior to your edit on grounds of clarity and style, as already explained in considerable detail. I do not know who wrote the passage in question, but my impartial judgment is that their version is better. The text seems perfectly lucid to me; you have argued that it is confusing, but nobody has concurred. Please see WP:WIN, and consider whether this discussion has perhaps dragged on long enough. 19:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, your previous points have been pretty convincing, but I can't find what point is being made here. You seem to be saying that your previous statements have been correct, but without addressing why it's better to say "because of those 90 people who wanted 173.180.202.22 to do X, he did so," instead of listing possible reasons and writing consequence at the end so readers can decide which reasons were more important themselves. Yes, you may think the protests were a reason for the bans, and I agree it's most likely the main factor, but we cannot imply it's the sole factor.

Also, there is no such philosophy that if a debate goes on for too long, it's the opposing side that's to blame. I'm not wrongfully accusing you of holding such a belief, I'm just reminding that we don't want to go in that direction. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)