Talk:Black Is King

Production company

Hi Jedi94! Thought it would be best to start a discussion here. Parkwood Entertainment has been named as the production company in the film's credits and in all of these sources: 1234567. I hope that we can follow this majority. Bgkc4444 (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

No one's denying that Parkwood Entertainment is one of the film's production companies, but we also have sources from reliable, reputable trade publications within the film/entertainment industry, including The Hollywood Reporter and Variety, and here again, that also explicitly report Walt Disney Pictures as a production company with Parkwood. The studio's logo is also included at the beginning of the film's opening credits. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 19:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jedi94: We should follow the majority of sources, and the majority of sources state that Parkwood Entertainment is the sole production company. Furthermore, the Variety article just copied what was on this Wikipedia article before, which is why Beyoncé is credited as "music by" and "producer", which she is not, and as the sole writer, director and cast member. Bgkc4444 (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

You are forming your own conclusion with your unsupported claim about Variety "copying" Wikipedia. We have seperate reliable secondary sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that report two production companies. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, when we have sources with contradicting information on a subject and none of them can be demonstrated unreliable, then the article should include both pieces of sourced content to maintain a neutral point-of-view for the reader. We do not choose which one of them is true. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 03:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jedi94: My claim is not unsupported. The writer copied from this Wikipedia article, including the mistakes for every category, as you can see here. According to the conflicting sources guidelines, "If the issue is a simple matter of fact (e.g., a birth date) but cannot be resolved, this can be reported by presenting the apparently most plausible choice in the text while adding a footnote with the alternatives." As the majority of sources (and all bar one accurate source) indicate Parkwood Entertainment as the sole production company, it is the most plausible choice, and therefore we should present that in the text. Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Where does it exactly show that they copied it? How did you determine that Walt Disney Pictures being an additional production company is an implausible choice? Not only is it supported by the 3 provided sources, the film also opens with the company's production logo and was produced for and released on Disney+, so it is certainly within the realm of plausibility if we go down that avenue of logic. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 05:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@TropicAces: @Greg Dahlen: @Alecsdaniel: @Hummerrocket: @NinjaRobotPirate: Pinging other editors that have been active on this article or worked on similar conflicts, so that this discussion doesn't stagnate as just a back-and-forth with no consensus. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 06:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The information that Variety used was wrong. Every single category (directed by, produced by, etc.) they got wrong. This shows that they didn't base that material on an official source or statement, and the history of this article shows that the false information presented was also present in this article.

I never said Disney being a production company for this film was an implausible choice, because The Hollywood Reporter source is a reliable source. But it certainly is the least plausible choice because every other reliable source says that Parkwood Entertainment were the sole production company. It doesn't matter whether it's in the "realm of plausibility" or not because the Wikipedia guidelines that you sent me clearly state that the least plausible choice should not be included in the text, and your edit is the least plausible choice.

Yes, it was released on Disney+, but that means Disney has the distribution rights, not that it is the production company. That is why the beginning of the film states: "Disney+ presents a Parkwood film". Anyways, we are looking at reliable third-party sources, which almost all say that Parkwood is the sole production company. Bgkc4444 (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

I’ve seen some sources (those listed, plus like, Metacritic) list only Parkwood, but I think the fact others like THR list Disney, plus the fact the film is centered around a song from a Disney film, produced exclusively for Disney’s streaming platform, puts the benefit of the doubt on Walt Disney in-fact being a fellow production company. My two cents. TropicAces (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@TropicAces: We should be following the reliable sources, and the vast majority say Parkwood is the sole production company. As Disney being a production company for the film is the least plausible choice because of the difference in its mention in reliable sources, it should not be included in the text. The film is not centered around a song from a Disney film, but based on an album inspired by The Lion King. The album's labels are Parkwood and Columbia, not Disney as other Disney soundtracks are, which further shows that the album and film did not have production input by Disney. Yes, it was produced for Disney's streaming platform because it uses ideas from a Disney film, but that does not indicate in any way that the production company of the film was Disney, and the credits of the film explicitly say "Disney+ presents a Parkwood film". Bgkc4444 (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

About the reviews

@Bgkc4444 and Alecsdaniel: I was evaluating whether this article needs semi-protection (I decided it doesn’t) and I noticed the beginnings of an edit war between the two of you about reviews. Please come here to the talk page to discuss your differences, and maybe reach agreement or some kind of compromise. Do not WP:Edit war. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this into the discussion. As mentioned, the paragraph starts by saying that the work was reviewed positively, but that there were some questions about how does it actually help the Black community of Africa. The answer that "she doesn't have to actually do that, she's not a politician" is a bit strange, but it is still a valid question asked in those articles. With an approval rate of 98% on Rotten Tomatoes, naturally the reader will want to know if there was any criticism, but that section only focuses on the praise the work received, which doesn't make it neutral. Alecsdaniel (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thank you for this!

@Alecsdaniel: I have a few points here:

1. As there is a discussion started here, you should not be continuously forcing your edits onto the page.
2. You should be attributing these statements to the people who wrote them.
3. You want to ask "how does it actually help the Black community of Africa", but there is no evidence that this is an aim of the film, and in fact those involved in the film have stated that the message of the film is for the African diaspora, and not for Africans on the continent.
4. If you want to represent certain writers' views, you need to represent the views present in the source with due weight, meaning that you cannot take one negative sentence (out of context and that is rebutted in the same source, see point 5) from an overwhelmingly positive review and add it to the article giving greater emphasis on the very minor negative point.
5. You are misrepresenting the authors' views. In the first source, Young rebutts the point you added, saying that there are "limits of a production like this" and that "Beyoncé takes great pains to associate Blackness not just with literal kings and queens, but also with community, consciousness and greatness" (which Beyonce has said is the aim of the film and not literal regality). In the second source, the point you added was said by a Twitter "user who goes by Radiocranberry" and "college student Grace Bassey", whereas the authors of the article disagree and say "Actually, we don't mind the animal prints so much. As a Kenyan professor living in the U.S. and a Nigerian doctor living in Nigeria, we believe that ultimately Black Is King is a timely celebration of Blackness. Considering the current global push of the Black Lives Matter movement and the increased international advocacy against racism, the time has come for a film like this." In the third source, the author immediately says after writing what you added "But Beyoncé is a singer, songwriter, producer, director, and dancer, not a historian or politician, so it’s hard to say that Black Is King oversteps any boundaries in its simple mission to elevate Black beauty and foster Black unity." You called this "a bit strange", but that's the answer your source gives, not me.

There's nothing wrong with adding negative points, but please make sure they are represented fairly and they follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you! Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

• 1. I revered the edit before I saw this conversation, so, it is ironic of you doing the same thing;
• 2. Not a reason to remove the reviews, you can complete their names if you wish to;
• 3. Beyonce herself called it a "love letter to Africa" and her mother "the beauty of Africans before colonialism", which, sounds like it pretty much includes actual Africans;
• 4. The paragraph we were talking about literally started by stating that the reviews were positive as well, but that certain questions were asked;
• 5. You can't say I am misrepresenting anything, since I just quoted them. Opinions on Twitter are valid if they are used in an article from a respected source (in this case, the NPR), as they represent the voice of the public, I didn't link to one tweet and called it a source. You are free to add an explanation and more context if you feel like it.

You are one of the main editors of this article and you are showing a clear bias, often fans of singers like Beyonce and Lady Gaga take control of an article and remove anything that could have a remotely negative tone. Even films like Citizen Kane with 100% approval on RT have mixed/negative reviews presented in the article and your decision to completely focus on the positive aspects of all reviews fails NPOV. Alecsdaniel (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

On the third point, according to the people who worked on the film as well as critics, the film is for the African diaspora to connect to their motherland.

On the fourth point, yes, but as I said you need to give due weight to the critics' opinion. If a critic gives a fully positive review, which includes a negative sentence that they themselves refute, you can't say that they're all positive reviews by-the-by and then spend a paragraph stretching out the negative points.

On the fifth, of course you are misrepresenting their views. You cannot take a sentence out of context and say that this is their negative opinion when they clearly refute the negative point that they bring.

You also cannot say that a critic believes a certain negative point said by a random Twitter user because they brought it in a review to say that it's wrong.

I'm not sure why you're making personal attacks on me because I would certainly not put you in a box as a "Madonna fan" to try delegitimise your points. As I have said, there is nothing wrong with adding negative reviews. Just follow the guidelines. Bgkc4444 (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

It is not a negative opinion per se, but it does call into questioning certain things. Even the mostly positive reviews (which are included in this article as being only positive) mention that the narrative is a bit clunky and there isn't much of a story, yet those points, despite being made in various links in this article, are not included anywhere. I didn't stretch anything negative, I was made sure to mention the fact that the review was positive, but it did raise a valid point. Again, it seems you are just ignoring what I was saying? I straight-up gave a quote from Beyonce about the film being about Africa, but your response was about "other people". Fine, we can take both into consideration and say the film is a dedication to Africa, but also to the Pan-African community. Also, it is not a personal attack, my comment about those fandoms come from my direct interaction with those fandoms. Then again, it seems like we are running in circles, so we may need input from other users. Alecsdaniel (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You need to accurately reflect the sources' views. If the author writes a positive review, in which they bring a negative point that someone on Twitter said in order to immediately say that the negative point is false, you cannot A) give more weight to the negative point than to the rest of the positive review, or B) claim that the author believes the claim that they explicitly refute. You cannot collect these points that the authors themselves refute just because you personally think they're "valid" and want to add negative reviews to this article.

No-one said the film isn't about Africa. You said that you wanted to include "questions about how does it actually help the Black community of Africa" in this article. I then said that "there is no evidence that this is an aim of the film, and in fact those involved in the film have stated that the message of the film is for the African diaspora, and not for Africans on the continent." You then replied that Beyonce said it was "a love letter to Africa", which does not support your claim. Again, if you have any evidence that the aim of the film is to "help the Black community of Africa" then please cite a source here.

I request that you go through WP:UNDUE, which should hopefully clear some things up. The guidelines say that the article "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Furthermore, it says that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." The guidelines also say "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Therefore, you finding a point to be "valid", or a Twitter user raising a point, or a journalist raising a point in order to immediately refute it, does not mean we should include these claims in the article. Bgkc4444 (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Five paragraphs of regurtitated praise and you're quibbling over a few measly sentences suggesting less-than-flattering yet valid thoughts? Forget personal attacks. We're dealing with a Beyhive attack... isento (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

So it would seem ... Alecsdaniel (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Removal of select review quotes

The above discussion seems to have stalled and gotten too long to read, so I've opened this instead. In short, Bgkc4444 removed Alecsdaniel's addition of select quotes of politically critical viewpoints about the album. So, should this content be removed? Please keep it shorter and more to the point this time, giving reasonably extensive comments further down. isento (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Votes

• Keep - Anastrophe (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - The sourced content. Netherzone (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, but precise wording could use some refinement.(Summoned by bot) - In short, it seems to me that both sides have a hold of a valid piece of the equation here. WP:WEIGHT is often a particularly difficult issue to balance in the case of critical response to an artistic work, because the views are often very idiosyncratic and focused in many different directions (even for a broadly celebrated or reviled work)--which is of course one of the fundamental properties of all art. As a general rule, the standard approach to this situation across articles on this project relating to popular works is to include even minority views, as there really is no other pragmatic approach and the community seems to be in agreement (albeit one that is not codified in any policy or formal style guidance I am familiar with) that this is a very different situation from bootstrapping a minority view about an empirical topic: after-all, properly attributed, such a statement does not say that "Subject is X" (at least not in Wikipedia's voice), but rather "Critic Y feels that Subject is X". For what it's worth, this is only an essay, but it does seem to validate this approach.

All the above said, that makes the attribution and larger contextualization quite critical. In the present case, I think the language could use some tightening in that regard. To begin with, the grammar/syntax need some work in general. But more to the point of the topic of discussion here, the lead-ins (particularly that of the second NPR review referenced, seem to suggest that what the reviewers are commenting on is something that should be regarded as fact, rather than one reviewer's take. Therefore, while the quotes themselves are probably acceptable, even as a weight matter, and are attributed in the general sense, the language around them needs to be made more neutral so that it does not massage extra implication of veracity or legitimacy into the statement than it it would get by standing on its own. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, snow. I think it's the first time in my 14 years here that I've ever been the first person to vote on something, so the formatting eluded me. :) Anastrophe (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem--I'm glad the edit was received as helpful. :) I generally will not edit another editor's comments, even for refactoring, unless I am fairly certain it would be welcome. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Remove or change to better reflect authors' views. Bgkc4444 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444
• Keep, but refine - echoing Snow Rise's vote. isento (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per my arguments made in the previous section. Alecsdaniel (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep It is worthy of inclusion. Idealigic (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• I can't think of a single valid, policy based reason for removal of the review. Removal of sourced content has to be based on policy. The section is entitled 'Critical Reception'. NPR is a perfectly reliable source. It's a review. It's perfectly fine for inclusion. Anastrophe (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• I see no reason not to include the content and the related citation in a reliable source added by editor Alecdaniel. For the record, I have no opinion on the film itself nor have I seen it; nor have I had interactions with the involved editors. I received an automated bot ping to contribute to this RfC which is the reason for my participation here. Netherzone (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• In summary, the edits misrepresent the views of the sources' authors and cannot be included as they are according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Alecsdaniel added the material in question because he wanted to address "how does it actually help the Black community of Africa", as he says here. However this is not an aim of the film in the first place, as the film is targeted to the black diaspora, as these sources show. Furthermore, the viewpoints he includes cannot be attributed to the authors, with the authors even explicitly refuting the arguments that Alecsdaniel claims they believe. In the first source, Young herself rebutts the point he added, saying that there are "limits of a production like this" and that "Beyoncé takes great pains to associate Blackness not just with literal kings and queens, but also with community, consciousness and greatness" (which Beyonce has said is the aim of the film and not literal regality). In the second source, the point he added was only said by a Twitter "user who goes by Radiocranberry" and "college student Grace Bassey", whereas the authors of the article disagree and say "Actually, we don't mind the animal prints so much. As a Kenyan professor living in the U.S. and a Nigerian doctor living in Nigeria, we believe that ultimately Black Is King is a timely celebration of Blackness. Considering the current global push of the Black Lives Matter movement and the increased international advocacy against racism, the time has come for a film like this." In the third source, the author immediately rebutts what Alecsdaniel claims they hold, writing "But Beyoncé is a singer, songwriter, producer, director, and dancer, not a historian or politician, so it’s hard to say that Black Is King oversteps any boundaries in its simple mission to elevate Black beauty and foster Black unity." When discussing this, he justified the inclusion of the misinformation by saying here that he personally believed the points to be "valid", which should not warrant their inclusion. Lastly due weight should be given, so that if a review is overwhelmingly positive and brings one negative point to immediately refute it, we should not write a brief few words that the review was positive and then spend the rest of the paragraph spreading out the negative point, as it further misrepresents the authors' views. Bgkc4444 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

What you described in the last sentence - overwhelmingly positive accompanied by a negative point - was the structure of the section before you removed those brief negative points. The section as it currently stands is a massive, unreadable wall of acclamatory quotes, meaning it's not neutral in form. Just because we cite a few critical viewpoints from otherwise positive appraisals does not mean we are misrepresenting any author. We are merely demonstrating viewpoints, which is the point of a section like this (WP:SUBJECTIVE). And it is a verifiable observation that "There are two kinds of reactions to Beyoncé's new Black Is King video: lavish praise – and deep criticism. The praise comes from her many fans and from many reviewers. The criticism often comes from Africans." If you're going to burden readers with a press-release-like eyesore five lengthy paragraphs long, the least you can do is give some representation to this established trend of criticism. Now, while WP:SUBJECTIVE says common interpretations should preferably be attributed to experts in the field, at least cite one such expert - say, the NPR writer - reporting this trend of criticism among a substantial group of listeners. Especially when the political use-value of the album is also criticized to some degree by experts like Jenkins in the Vulture piece (among the sources removed), where he devotes a paragraph to this aspect. isento (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc, would your concerns be addressed by adding a bit more of the attributed quotes in question, such as to provide additional context/nuance to the views of the critics cited? Based on some of the perspectives shared above, I think there may be a good chance that such an approach would be viewed as non-controversial. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Snow Rise that would definitely help Bgkc4444 (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Excellent: perhaps you could provide the additional original language from the sources that you would like to see added (or even a rewrite of the sentences in question, if you feel so inclined), and we can see if there is broad support for the additions/changes. But I'm not meaning to put you on the spot here: it is not incumbent upon you to do this work in order to stand by your position, so please treat this as an invitation, not a requirement. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

How about: In a review for NPR, Cate Young praised how "Beyoncé takes great pains to associate Blackness not just with literal kings and queens, but also with community, consciousness and greatness", but also recognized the limits of such a film, as it is unable to "aid Black people to associate blackness with wealth and riches". For the same publication, Feanyi Nsofor and Esther Ngumbi reject some people's claims that the film perpetuates stereotypical depictions of Africans, writing, "we believe that ultimately Black Is King is a timely celebration of Blackness... The time has come for a film like this. With this project, Beyoncé has put a conversation about Africa on the front line." Craig Jenkins of Variety praised how "Black Is King honors the history and culture of Africa and shares screen time and directorial duties with African auteurs". Despite the film not tackling certain issues in Africa such as armed conflict, Jenkins explained that Beyoncé is "not a historian or politician", and that "it’s hard to say that Black Is King oversteps any boundaries in its simple mission to elevate Black beauty and foster Black unity". Jenkins concluded by calling the film "an inclusive experience and a gorgeous tale of metaphysical Afrofuturism". Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

A bit too long, heavy on points of praise already packed in this section, and not entirely accurate (Nsofor and Ngumbi don't really "reject" so much as acknowledge the criticism before concluding it's not that consequential). Make it succinct: Some reviewers recognized political and cultural limitations in the project. In an otherwise positive review, NPR's Cate Young questioned, "beautiful as it is, how does it aid Black people to associate blackness with wealth and riches many of us will never attain in this life?" In a joint review for the same publication, Ifeanyi Nsofor and Esther Ngumbi recognized some African listeners' objections that the project is not an entirely accurate representation of Africa, agreeing that it overlooks the East African region, which ironically is the setting for the original Lion King. However, they ultimately found it appropriate and successful in its promotion of Blackness given the current political climate. Similarly, Craig Jenkins of Vulture believed it works simply as an attempt to extol Black unity and beauty, rather than as a historical or political document. isento (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think there could be a bit more by way of direct quoting here given the context, but if Bgkc4444 feels that this version summarizes the sources in an adequately faithful manner, I'm not going to stand in the way of a reasonable middle ground solution. That said, s someone ever-so-slightly fresher to discussion, I'm happy to take a crack at it myself upon request, if neither of the above is agreeable to the proponent of the other. But I don't want to clutter and confuse discussion with another variant until there is an expressed desire for one. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your contributions. Regarding your suggested paragraph Isento, as I put in my suggestion, Young immediately explains that the film doesn't just define richness as material wealth but richness in community and identity, as Beyonce stated was the aim of the film. Nsofor and Ngumbi do reject those assertions. I agree that the reference to needing more East African representation in the film can be included in this article, but they immediately follow with "However, we acknowledge that it would be hard to fit all the beauty and diversity of the continent in one film – there are 54 countries in Africa after all." Just saying "they ultimately found it appropriate" downplays the positive response of the writers. Additionally, writing "given the current political climate" implies they only praised the film because of the recent Black Lives Matter movement, but they did not say that and were praising it irrespective of events in a country they're not from. Ignoring the "similarly", as the former didn't say what you attribute to the latter, you write that Jenkins "believed it works simply as an attempt to extol Black unity and beauty, rather than as a historical or political document". This again downplays his views of the film. He writes that film is a message to "the Black diaspora spread out over the globe and poignantly lacking, as the film suggests overtly and covertly, a close connection to the millennia of African history from which we are descended". He continues saying that the film is historically significant in that it is an American film set in Africa that uses a black cast and a black crew and is not done through "the white gaze". He concludes that "Black Is King honors the history and culture of Africa" and calls it "an inclusive experience and a gorgeous tale of metaphysical Afrofuturism". To that end, Snow Rise it would be great if you could try another version. Your help is very much appreciated. Bgkc4444 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Jenkins doesn't say it's "historically significant" for this, but "a noble attempt at bridging African and Black American culture through music". He similarly views it less as a historical or political document because it "treat[s] Africa like the final destination of a spirit journey for lost Black sons and daughters overseas" rather than depicting "real needs on the ground, where armed conflict, rights abuses, sickness, and water shortages plague many". The positive points that are supposedly "downplayed" are already well represented among other sources in this section, so this really shouldn't be such a concern given the weight. As far as Young and "richness," she describes her question about "wealth and riches" as "capitalist concerns", so we can simply say that too. But again, the greater issue in this section remains the existing content, which makes it difficult to properly gauge how any points of criticism should be represented. By the time a reader gets to the last paragraph, they will likely be exhausted by what is practically too long to read. isento (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Isento: Jenkins calls the album The Gift "a noble attempt...", not the film Black Is King. He says that it's historically significant because "Historically, American films have often used Africa as a backdrop for stories built around the protagonist’s, or at least the audience’s, inexperience in the landscape" and Black Is King rectifies this. You also cannot "simply say" Young's richness comment without adding the additional parts she wrote saying how the film makes it clear that richness isn't just material wealth but about community and identity, as I mentioned that Beyonce stated was the aim of the film. The fact that you do want to downplay the positive reviews (not supposedly) cannot be justified by saying "everyone thinks it's good and I want to show why it's bad so I'll cherry-pick negative ideas quoted and rebutted by writers and add them to the article". As you and Alecsdaniel want to include these reviews, we need to properly represent the authors' views. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Careful. Your comments are starting to get "sharp" again... isento (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Isento: Please comment on the points in our discussion, not on me as a contributor, and please remember to be civil (see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL) Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Without intending to validate either potential version over the other, I will say this, which should govern any proposed wording: we shouldn't be seeking to put a positive or negative spin on any reviewer's perspective (whether with our summaries or our choice of which elements of the review get quoted): doing so would be a manifest violation of WP:NPOV, as it is simply not our role to level out the gestalt sentiment of the section such that it feels more "balanced" to us. Rather, policy requires that each individual source that is included needs to be represented to some extent as if it is in isolation to all other reviews. Whether a given source is inherently "positive", "negative", a combination, or some nuanced idiosyncratic perspective that is difficult to classify as either exactly, the representation here should reflect as much, as a matter of neutrality--no matter how much or how little the rest of the content of the reception section reflects similar or antithetical views.

Not that I'm saying that anyone is advocating for anything inconsistent with that observation. But I do think that both versions of the suggested alternative wordings suggested above could use refinements in that regard: both have some degree of editorializing in which language is selected and how it is organized together or summarized--if you will both forgive my saying as much. The easiest solution here (as in any instance when we are attributing a position to a given party in our content on this project) is to lean a little more heavily into the source's own wording, presenting any positions with as little interpretation as possible. Isento, if that means that the overall tone of the section feels like it is 98% positive as opposed to 95%, that's just the way it has to be: we can't give more weight to the negative in a given review than we do the positive in that same source, just to keep the section from feeling one-note. Sometimes the published critical reception of an artistic work is just one-dimensional like that, and we have no choice but to follow suit in those instances. And after-all, there would be no prohibition in presenting other, more uniformly negative reviews should they be turned up, but apparently none have been presented here in that respect.

Bgkc, likewise, I perceive some minor problems in how you have strung the direct quotes together in a fashion that perhaps involves some very light synthesis on your part which slightly enhances your take on what the reviewers are saying--not WP:SYNTHESIS in the way we usually use the term on this project, where multiple sources are being patched together, but rather something less severe and yet still kind of similar in nature and a little problematic, involving too much re-organization of the direct quotes as a constellation that forms a particular shape that is perhaps ever-so-slightly one of your making. I'm worried about sounding too discouraging here when you are both clearly trying to reach as best you can for what a middle ground that you both perceive to be within the realm of faithfulness to the source and the needs of the article as a whole. I merely wish to emphasize why i think the solution here is to provide some direct quotes of the reviews in question with as little extraneous extra commentary (or for that matter, selective trimming) as possible. It should be possible to add two or three full sentences (or at least meaningful clauses) from each source, with just the lightest of connective tissue in extra language on our part, and leave it at that. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Thanks so much for your assistance in this. I definitely agree with everything you said and you are certainly not being too discouraging. I know the Isento is not happy if we quote from the sources "too much" but I agree with you that in these sort of nuanced pieces it can be difficult to paraphrase. MOS:FILM states that "If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly." Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

By obsequiously trying to curry favor from whoever even suggests support of your side, and by not engaging (dare I say, even marginalizing) valid concerns and suggestions from dissenting editors here, you are essentially leaving it up to a vote to determine this RfC's outcome, which currently stands in favor of keeping Alec's original addition. isento (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Isento: Please comment on the points in our discussion, not on me as a contributor, and please remember to be civil (see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL). I do not understand how I am "obsequiously trying to curry favor from whoever even suggests support of your side" and I implore you to stop with the personal attacks. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

In the Rotten Tomatoes source citing the section's leading sentence, there is a section on ARE THERE ANY IMPERFECTIONS?, with select critics' quotes highlighted. You see how it uses the same critics cherry-picked for different-themed sections, but locates them in different areas? Perhaps that should be considered. For instance, place Jenkins' positives in the paragraphs on the positives (which should really be trimmed and restructured so they each have a unifying theme), while relegating his more critical points to a short paragraph at the bottom. isento (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. I can't say as I have ever seen it done on Wikipedia before, but that is not necessarily an ironclad argument against it. It would present unique challenges for presenting the over-arching take of the given sources accurately, but I wouldn't say it cannot be done. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I remember using this approach for Christgau's_Record_Guide:_The_'80s#Critical_reception. isento (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know I have already been quite verbose with the above post, but I do want to clarify one point, so it doesn't seem I have mistaken or misrepresentated one of the above editors. Specifically, Isento, I want to clarify that I know you are not necessarily arguing for including only the critical elements from the NPR reviews in order to create a false balance: you are merely saying that the section is already heavy and that it might not hurt in the final analysis to focus on a very limited span of these last reviews--and that for the sake of balance, given how glowing much of the rest of the section is, if we have to choose a small portion of these reviews, they might as well be the critical ones. That's a very nuanced and not altogether uncompelling argument. But I think its problematic per the 'we need to treat each review in its own light' factor I have described above, as a factor of NPOV. I think it's just smarter to err on the side of running afoul of WP:TL, rather than risk stepping into the quagmire of a potential NPOV issue, since the latter is a pillar policy. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You can always qualify the critical views are "minor gripes"... That would not be misrepresenting the author or violating WP:NPOV. I think our concerns really should focus on readability. Articles are not an indiscriminate collection of information, and by overusing ideas through quoting more reviews that say them, we make the quotes lose pertinence, which becomes a copyright issue (WP:QUOTE). I don't believe it is a POV issue to say those African NPR writers identified a trend of criticism among a significant enough portion of African listeners. They are documenting or reporting that, independent of their own views, and it is not a weight issue to briefly include that in this section, which mind you begins with something about "positive reviews from critics and fans alike"? isento (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

My proposed paragraph is not some perfect and final copy, btw. It was just something to start with, provided someone can add such a thing without it being flat-out scrapped rather than refined or expanded on.. isento (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Isento, especially since we have six paragraphs that basically say the same thing over and over again (I could summarize almost all of that section as critics saying "the film is visually stunning"). Some of the reviews actually go further and ask similar questions to the ones from NPR and Vulture, but they've been omitted in favor of the "positive". Alecsdaniel (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

According to MOS:FILM, "To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to sample a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used." This does not mean that since Black Is King is almost universally acclaimed no negative points should be mentioned, but we need to represent writers' nuanced views correctly, and just because one may believe that including reviews makes it unreadable, we should not (as I was saying before) misrepresent authors' views and quote negative points just for the sake of making the section more "varied". Additionally, the "positive reviews from critics and fans alike" sentence you brought should not be in the article and I removed it previously here. This is a section about the critical reception. A reviewer saying that they saw someone on Twitter who said that they didn't like how the actors wore animal prints and climbed trees in the film (the second never happened in the film anyway, which shows why random Twitter users aren't reliable sources) and the reviewer disagreeing with them and loving the film instead, should not be written in a section relaying how the critics received the film as that they "recognized some African listeners' objections that the project is not an entirely accurate representation of Africa".

@Alecsdaniel: Regarding your point, there are quotes in the section praising the themes, the music, Beyonce's direction, the talent, the historical and political significance and the wider cultural impact of the film. I do not see how it can be called "six paragraphs that basically say the same thing over and over again (I could summarize almost all of that section as critics saying "the film is visually stunning")". If you think those subjects can be expanded further feel free to do so! Bgkc4444 (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

You certainly have a knack for putting words in people's mouths (who exactly are you even quoting when you say "varied"?). The Rotten Tomatoes source you used yourself shows there was a fair portion of critical points in the reviews, so perhaps you're the one "downplaying" something. A quick Google search appears to show animal prints in the film - so are you sure about that? You didn't sample a reasonable balance of reviews - it is grossly indulgent and unreadable. And because of that, your argument singling out a three-sentence paragraph of mildly critical viewpoints is ridiculous in the context of the section you did end up writing. isento (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Isento: Please comment on the points in our discussion, not on me as a contributor, and please remember to be civil (see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL). I said "the second never happened in the film", not the first. I am not singling out these points because they are critical, and I have said many times that I welcome additions of such material to the article, but mischaracterising the authors' views should not be done. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Arbitrary break for convenience

Personally, notwithstanding the legitimate concerns voiced above about the length of this section, I think (even if we focus on the specific critiques in play), it's going to be difficult to cover these three sources without spending at least a little more space to flesh out the quotes--all of this said with no disrespect intended to the useful starting place given to us by Alecsdaniel. At least, that is the conclusion I have arrived at after taking a hand at reducing the first of the NPR quotes, for which I have a rewording to propose. I know space is at a premium here, but I think if it helps us move past the disagreement and contextualize these critiques in a way everyone agrees is neutral, it may be worth a few extra lines in length for the section--though I also appreciate that the rational response there is "if we did this every review quoted in this section, said section would be fifteen paragraphs long", which is reasonable. Still, here's my proposal regarding the first critical source:

Cate Young of NPR, in a largely positive review, spoke to the creative intentions of Knowles to represent an image of black culture that is ostensibly more positive and empowering than many past representations in western media: "Beyoncé has made it part of her own mission to create divine images of Black people that can be, and obviously are, widely consumed. In some ways, this is a corrective to how Black people have been depicted in the past..." But Young goes on to observe that she perceives some pragmatic limitations to such an approach: "...the idea of a corrective presumes a white gaze. Black people have always found ways to see the beauty and sanctity in each other, so what is there to correct? It also calls into question the limits of a production like this. Beautiful as it is, how does it aid Black people to associate blackness with wealth and riches many of us will never attain in this life?"

Mind you, I think that particular critique by Ms. Young is actually rhetorically vulnerable to a number of arguments, but of course it's not for us to throw our own original research into the mix. And I do feel this wording captures both the criticism and the contextual caveats of the original author while reducing the section about as much as is possible within those constraints. But I'm curious to find out of the rest of you all agree it is a reasonable middle ground solution. For what it's worth, having taken a a look at the Vulture critique a few times now as well, I think that one is going to be even more of a tall order in reducing to more workable length while maintaining the tone and nuanced sentiment inherent in the original wording. I'm happy to take a crack at it too, but I thought I'd start here and treat each of the reviews in isolation. I'd also note that, although it is quite common to find critical reviews clustered near the end of reception section, there is no mandate for this to be so, so these components can be moved higher up if there is a concern they will be otherwise buried relative to more positive reviews if the section becomes overlong (which obviously it already is, but this may be acceptable given the volume of critical response needing distilling here). Thoughts? Snow ^{let's rap} 20:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty good, but it can be reduced without losing the point being put across to readers. The first sentence of the first quote can be ditched, since your paraphrase says the same. And the second quote can be paraphrased as ...some pragmatic limitations to such an approach, including the questionable value of associating blackness with a practically unattainable capitalist wealth and the corrective's underlying presumption of a white gaze: "Black people have always found ways to see the beauty and sanctity in each other, so what is there to correct?" isento (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you provide your full proposed wording just for clarity? I'm not sure if I am entirely understanding the exact flow of statements you are suggesting. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Cate Young of NPR, in a largely favorable review, spoke to the creative intentions of Knowles to represent an image of black culture that is ostensibly more positive and empowering than many past representations in Western media, acting in some way as a "corrective". But Young goes on to observe that she perceives some pragmatic limitations to such an approach, including the questionable value of associating blackness with a practically unattainable capitalist wealth and the corrective's underlying presumption of a white gaze: "Black people have always found ways to see the beauty and sanctity in each other, so what is there to correct?" isento (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

When Alecsdaniel added the material, he used the part of "how does it aid Black people to associate blackness with wealth and riches many of us will never attain in this life", therefore we should be using this part of the source in the article. Then it is necessary to include the next part of the source, that "Beyoncé takes great pains to associate Blackness not just with literal kings and queens, but also with community, consciousness and greatness", especially because this is what Beyonce has said is the aim of the film.

Regarding what you said Snow Rise about how the critique is "rhetorically vulnerable to a number of arguments", I definitely agree with that because ironically there's opposing views saying that the film depicts African as being too poor, and she should've depicted them as being even richer. This is another reason why I find the inclusion of a simplified version of one side of a discussion on the film to be inappropriate, as there are critiques (some of them nuanced themselves) saying the film depicts Africans as being "too rich" or "too poor" or "just right", or the film is "too diverse" or "not diverse enough" or "just right", etc. Often it seems that people are finding a way to criticise the film, which is why a lot of these critiques were said when just a 60-second trailer was released, and despite most of the arguments being disproved when the film was released, some have continued to stick by them. I am happy to include all of these various views, but I recognise the concerns regarding length, and I feel that spending a large chunk of the section relaying the minutiae of such debates would not be in accordance with the guidelines regarding giving undue weight to minority views, especially if the view is held by an extremely small minority (e.g. one person) while everyone else disagrees and holds the opposite of that view. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444