Talk:Docufiction

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

"Extreme Docufiction"

...is written in completely broken English. I have no idea what the author was attempting to get across there... What does the heading even mean? 152.208.36.160 (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no term "extreme docufiction" in existing literature. CinemaScholar (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RULES

at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy

"Admins should not protect pages in edit wars that they are involved in." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.241.6 (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal

When removing a section of an article, it is necessary that it at least be explained, and in some cases, discussed. Unexplained removal of content is when the reason for the removal is not obvious, and is open to being promptly reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.91.80.144 (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the dispute in question was not a simple "edit war" — admins do also have the responsibility of removing inappropriate content, such as improperly cited original research, and are permitted any remedy necessary to prevent inappropriate content from returning. In vandalism situations, for example, administrators are permitted to lock down a page even if they removed the vandalism themselves — and in the case of content by banned users being restored by IPs who are obviously that banned user, administrators have the same leeway to lock the page even if they were directly involved in the removal of the violating content. Wikipedia does have rules, sure, but they don't all work in the ways that are most convenient to your self-serving interpretations of them — one of the actual rules is that if one of our other rules is being broken (e.g. the restoration of disputed content by banned users), then I as an administrator do have the responsibility to enforce that rule by any means necessary, even if that include tactics (like page protection) that might seem like rule breaches to an anonymous IP with no prior edit history and an obvious agenda.

Secondly, the removal has been discussed in the past. The content was clear bullshit, not actually supported by any of the sources it was being "cited" to, that advanced an original research thesis not already placed on the record for us by any reliable source analysis of "extreme" or "hybrid" docufiction as things that exist outside of Tertulius's imagination. We do not need to rediscuss disputed content every time the blocked user who originally added it tries to readd it again under a different alias or IP number — the first time is all the discussion that's required, and after that the content can be removed anytime it comes back with no need of any new rediscussion.

Thirdly, you're just not fooling anyone, Tertulius. Pretending to be several different people in an attempt to create the appearance of wider grassroots support for your content than actually exists in reality is a tactic we can see through quite easily — and it's the exact thing you got banned for in the first place, remember? Bearcat (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are some great sources that could be used here. Paget is one. Cynthia J. Miller's book. Another major issue here is that some key sources aren't registering, or are barely registering. CinemaScholar (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Jean Rouch.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this page should exist, but the definition of what constitutes a Docufiction film needs to be clarified, its uses and misuses. Sometimes it has been used as synonymous with mockumentary, for example, but it isn't, if we take mockumentary to be films that announce they are fake (THE MIGHTY WIND, etc) vs. films that are faked or faked in part but conceal that fact (MONDO movies). Perhaps the reason why some don't see value in this page is that in its current form it does not distinguish Docufictions from other similar, but different forms, like mockumentary and docudrama. CinemaScholar (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This delection discussion is not about the wiki article "Docufiction", but about an image once used here that is housed at our sister project Wikimedia Commons, Jean Rouch.jpg. Also this discussion was from 5 years ago in 2018 and is now long over. He iro 00:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me ask what the definition of "long over" might be? Should volunteers not address issues that are five years old? Or three? Or one? Please let me ask what the time limit is? 24.112.18.182 (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, the discussion is mooted, since the uploader of the image has provided evidence of ownership/license to Commons, so the image is still there. —C.Fred (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, because deletion discussions usually have a time limit of several weeks. One being held 5 years ago is long over. And the proper place to chime in on it would have been Commons, and not here, CinemaScholar He iro 04:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what exactly "several weeks" means? Is it 4 or 6 or 8 etc? What is "long over" - ? When if discussion/freedom of speech mooted on Wikipedia? Is it weeks or months or years? 24.112.18.182 (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's 7 days, so one week. Then the file is either kept or deleted. So "long over" is one week deadline that passed nearly 5 years ago. See Commons deletion policy procedure. WP has no "freedom of speech". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Talkpages are for discussing the improvement of articles, not whatever it is you are doing here and at Talk:No true Scotsman. You're bordering on WP:Tendentious editing. Keeping going in this vein will not end well for you. He iro 05:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

City of God

Looking at some of the entries for works of docufuction, I fail to see how City of God is anything other than a feature film... Anyone care to shed some light? Or can we take it off the list? dh74g3y (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the film to speak authoritatively either way — although I will say that the news article being cited to support its inclusion here doesn't explicitly use the word "docufiction" to describe it, but does include phrases that trend in a docufiction-ish direction, such as "nonprofessional actors" and "cinéma vérité". So I just generally don't know for sure one way or the other whether it's a docufiction film or not. But what I can say is that you're implying a distinction between "docufiction" and "feature film" that doesn't exist — docufictions can be features, and features can be docufictional, so the terms aren't mutually exclusive. Could you maybe try to describe your perception of the film in other terms that make it clearer? Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us would not see this film as a "Docufiction." This page is missing many important examples of docufictions, dating to the 1890s. Paul's Boer War films, shot here in the UK, for example. Or the BATTLE OF THE TAKU FORTS. There are so many from later periods. The film TOO HOT TO HANDLE (1938), a fictional film, features Clark Gable as someone who makes docufiction newsreels. As Paget and others have addressed, some examples of reality TV would also merit inclusion. CinemaScholar (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First use of the term

Most claims on Wikipedia, particularly those that claim invention, coinage, etc, require secondary sources (see WP:SECONDARY). Primary sources can only establish that that source used a term, not that they were _first_ to use a term. MrOllie (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I quickly found an example from 2000 (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/16466) I think it is unlikely that any reliable sources will support a coinage in 2005. MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article cited is not a film studies article or about the film genre in question. As peer reviewed sources show, the term for a film genre (as opposed to its use in other disciplines) dates to the book of the name, which has dozens if not hundreds of scholarly citations. CinemaScholar (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No true scotsman. Here's another cite from even earlier, 1990: Owens, Kenneth N. "Magnificent Fraud: Ivan Petrov's Docufiction on Russian Fur Hunters and California Missions" The Californians: The Magazine of California History 8, no 2 MrOllie (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for that 'appeal to Wikipedia', by the way. Please don't make empty threats. MrOllie (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then THAT source should be used. But to attempt to block attributions as a war on me is absurd, as is your ethnocentric and offensive use of the term "scotsman." CinemaScholar (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would have hoped Wikipedia was beyond racism and ethnocentrism. CinemaScholar (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, false accusations of racism. I'm really enjoying the tone of this discussion. MrOllie (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself used the term "scotsman," and it is enthnocentric. CinemaScholar (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report it then, I'm still waiting. MrOllie (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and will rely on others to deal with your effort to target a volunteer who has provided primary and secondary sources, and who has drawn attention to your ethnocentric language. CinemaScholar (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong board. I already linked WP:ANI for you. Also, here is a thesis from 1998 that applies the term specifically to films. MrOllie (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if there is an earlier example, as I've already said, it should be used. As a citizen of the United Kingdom and a Scotsman, your terminology is offensive. Of course it is tied to an old phrase. Many old phrases are offensive. It is offensive and ethnocentric. CinemaScholar (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are several, and your secondary source doesn't support what you claim it does. a type that Rhodes and Singer (2006) term docufiction does not say what you put in the article - that they introduced the term. It seems you have made that up yourself. Since we have no reliable secondary source, we cannot put any of this in the article. I find your victim playing tiresome. Report it at the proper place or move on. MrOllie (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't victim playing to call out ethnocentrism. You can make your point without attacking a country, its people, and me. CinemaScholar (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to drop the WP:BATTLE and WP:IDHT, and show some WP:AGF. Accusing someone of racist and ethnocentric attacks when that comment was no such thing can be seen as a WP:NPA violation. Discuss the content you wish to add. He iro 23:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an offensive phrase to the people of Scotland, myself included. It is ethnocentric. If Wikipedia wishes no one from Scotland to volunteer, then that is fine. But nothing changes the fact that this is a very outmoded term and it is ethnocentric. CinemaScholar (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entry should not revert back to claiming this phrase dates to the early 21st cent. It should use the 1990 source if it is indeed about the cinema. That would mean the term dates to the late 20th cent. CinemaScholar (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is only usable to show that the 2005 date is bunk, because, once again, it is a primary source for usage of the term. MrOllie (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your anger at me is preventing you from allowing an objective date -- 1990 -- to be used. You are allowing what you know to be false to stand on Wikipedia. This is horrifying. CinemaScholar (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1990 isn't an 'objective date', it is a lower bound. Somebody might uncover a reference from 1989 tomorrow. To make a specific claim about when the term was coined we need a secondary source. Also, I'm still waiting for you to deliver on that threat from earlier. Either make the report, or if you want to discuss this in good faith from now on, a retraction and an apology would be appreciated. MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is why it should say late twentieth century. And yes, earlier examples may appear, which is why the English language includes qualifiers. It could easily and correctly state, "to at least the late twentieth century." CinemaScholar (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a secondary source. If the secondary source was incorrect or imprecise, fine. But I added a secondary source upon request. CinemaScholar (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source did not say what you claimed it said. MrOllie (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you found an earlier source. Great. Why conceal that by reverting to "early 21st century," when that is also not correct? You are stubbornly refusing to allow the truth here because you are mad at me. CinemaScholar (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to answer any more of your questions while you have made outstanding threats and personal attacks against me. MrOllie (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term dates to earlier than the 21st century. That now seems a fact. It should be included. CinemaScholar (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And in the meanwhilst: I don't think that the wide use of "documentary", with a meaning other than "deriving from documents", is very old. (Unfortunately I don't have access to the OED right now and therefore can't check.) But COHA has an example of "scientifiction magazines" from 1947 and one of "English detectifiction writer" from 1939. In 1941, Morris Bishop recommended "biofiction" to the aspiring biographer, though he presented this as a neologism: There is a third sort of biography, one which appeals to the scholarly writer who is, perhaps, more writer than scholar. It is a kind of biography which has had many manifestations in recent years, beginning, perhaps, with Maurois' Ariel in 1923. It has many of the characteristics of fiction, including that of general popularity. Every reader knows it well, though the English Departments of our co!leges regard it as a bastard form, when, indeed, they admit its existence at all. Let us call it Biofiction, on the analogy with biophysics, biochemistry, biophysiography. It may be more bio than fiction or more fiction than bio. But in any case it is based solidly on fact, and it permits a good deal of invention, a good deal of decoration which must not distort the essential form. (For the source, see the article Morris Bishop. No italics in the original; Ariel is Maurois' bio(fiction) of Shelley.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be confusion here between the first time a word was used and when it was widely accepted by scholars as defining a new film genre. In their 2005 book, Rhodes and Springer wrote "we are proposing a new term, docufictions, as a way of naming an insufficiently analyzed tendency in film practice...".^[1] yet, even in 2014, Deppman wrote Challenging and problematic, the term ‘docufiction’ has yet to be commonly accepted as a generic category (Springer and Rhodes 2006, 4-5; Lipkin, Pager and Roscoe 2006, 11)^[2](Note citation of Rhodes & Springer). The Wikipedia article perhaps need to reflect this rather slow acceptance of the term, even though examples of its use, as given above in this thread, can be found.

References

^ Rhodes, Gary D.; Springer, John Parris (8 November 2005). Docufictions: Essays on the Intersection of Documentary and Fictional Filmmaking. p. 5. ISBN 9780786421848.
^ Deppman, Hsiu-Chuang (2014). "Reading docufiction: Jia Zhangke's24 City" (PDF). Journal of Chinese Cinemas. 8 (3): 188–208. doi:10.1080/17508061.2014.949156. S2CID 144210306.

Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good points there, Mike Turnbull. The title of the first chapter of Welch D Everman's Who Says This? The Authority of the Author, the Discourse, and the Reader (Southern Illinois UP, 1988) is "The novel as document: The 'docufiction' of Norman Mailer, Jay Cantor, and Jack Kerouac". Lots more hits for the word if you click this: many of these are in French, but several that are in English look as if they might argue for a distinct genre (usually of what's read on paper, but perhaps of movies too). Those of you who are more energetic/interested than I am may wish to explore. (And to my surprise, this also brings lots of hits for "biofiction".) -- Hoary (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention other early uses of the word, like this one from 1982! Nick Moyes (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Rhodes, Gary D.; Springer, John Parris (8 November 2005). Docufictions: Essays on the Intersection of Documentary and Fictional Filmmaking. p. 5. ISBN 9780786421848.

[2] Deppman, Hsiu-Chuang (2014). "Reading docufiction: Jia Zhangke's24 City" (PDF). Journal of Chinese Cinemas. 8 (3): 188–208. doi:10.1080/17508061.2014.949156. S2CID 144210306.

[1]

[2]